Sitting of 1 November 2000

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

  CITY OF LONDON (WARD ELECTIONS) BILL (By ORDER)
  Order for consideration, as amended, read.
  To be further considered on Wednesday 8 November.

Oral Answers to Questions
  CABINET OFFICE
  The Minister was asked—
  CABINET OFFICE

    Drugs (Young People)
    Mr. Gordon Marsden: If he will make a statement on action being taken to reduce drug taking among young people. [133637]
    The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Mr. Ian McCartney): A key objective of the Government's anti-drugs strategy is to reduce the incidence of drug misuse among the under-25s in order that they can achieve their full potential. Our target is to reduce the proportion of young people using the drugs that cause the greatest harm—heroin and cocaine—by 50 per cent. by 2008, and by 25 per cent. by 2005.
    The outcome of the recent spending review provides expenditure of up to £1 billion to underpin delivery of the strategy, and this includes taking forward prevention and education work. For example, Blackpool will have its own drug action team from next April; and in 2000–2001, nearly £20,000 has been made available to the local education authority there to make sure that young people receive the help and advice that they need.
    Mr. Marsden: I thank my right hon. Friend for those comments, which underline the seriousness, commitment and—if I may say so—the thoughtfulness with which the Government have taken the programme forward. Many of the programmes being proposed are pilot programmes of reintegration that emphasise a holistic treatment of drugs. Will my right hon. Friend consider giving clearer and sharper guidelines to health authorities and social services to make sure that those holistic elements are high on the agenda when the pilot programmes move on to other areas?
    Mr. McCartney: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is critically important that pilot projects are not the end of the matter but that they are the beginning of a holistic,
    694
    across-the-board range of services. That is what we are attempting to do in Blackpool, where there has been a pilot project. The announcements that I have made today flow from that project. The health authority has the responsibility to provide continuity of care for those clients identified during the pilot project. However, I should be happy to meet my hon. Friend and discuss any problems that he may want to raise, or any further improvements that may help in his area.
    Mr. David Davis: We all know how seriously the Minister takes this matter. This morning's newspapers carried reports about his announcement of a new approach to minimise the risk to youngsters taking drugs. However, is there not a risk that changing a policy of "Just Say No" to one of "Just Take Care" will lead to more youngsters thinking that it is okay to take drugs?
    Mr. McCartney: The right hon. Gentleman and I have known each other since 1987, so I take his question at face value. It was not a quip, or an attempt to be flippant. However, there has been no change in policy. The matter is far more complex than "Just Say No". We want to target and work with four groups of young people, and the first and overwhelmingly important aim is to prevent them from taking drugs.
    For people who are already taking drugs or who are at risk of doing so, we want to implement a strategy of getting them off drugs. We also need a strategy to ensure that people who are on drugs do not lose their lives. When a child loses its life, there is no strategy left.
    The issue is therefore complex. Most hon. Members are parents or grandparents. Some have children who take drugs, and not all will know about it. Every right-minded parent would agree that the Government have a responsibility to prevent drug taking, but additionally that the Government must try to ensure that young people who are taking drugs do not lose their lives.
    What I announced yesterday was not a new policy. However, for the first time in 15 years club owners who have a turned a blind eye to drug taking in their establishments will be required to take their responsibilities seriously and join the Government in promoting a new culture in clubs. Owners will work to prevent drug taking in their clubs. They will also ensure that their staff are trained to make sure that safety measures are in place to deal with any drug taking that might go on, and to work with young people in the youth culture. In that way, young people will be told, in their own language, about facilities to help them come off drugs.
    The Government want to help young people who are still not prepared to come off drugs to do so safely, so that the police do not have to knock on their parents' door one morning to tell them that their child is dead. That is the Government's strategy, and I do not think that anyone in Britain would say that it is wrong-headed. It is the only strategy worth pursuing. That is why the message that I delivered in Liverpool yesterday was so strong. I hope that all hon. Members will support what I said.
    Mr. David Lepper: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the campaign in the Brighton and Hove area initiated by the local newspaper, the Evening Argus, and supported by local agencies? Its aim is to

    695
    encourage people to give money to agencies working with the street homeless and those with drug problems, rather than to beggars on the streets. What evidence is there for a link between street begging and drug addiction?
    Mr. McCartney: I know of the projects in Brighton. Indeed, a fortnight ago I did an interview with a young person from The Big Issue, who is on the programme and looking to change his life style and take up journalism. I have also given a commitment to go to Brighton with the young people to look at the project from the point of view of the partnership approach and that of the young people themselves.
    It is true to say that people have the absolute right to donate to someone on the street. People will continue to do so, but not everyone can do that and they cannot do it to everyone who approaches them. So the Government's advice and that of the agencies is clear and simple and it is the right advice. If people want to make a contribution to solving the problem of homelessness, to getting young people off the streets and into a safer environment, or to helping young people who have mental illnesses and are on the streets, they should make it through an organisation that works not only with one young person but with every young person who is in a vulnerable position 365 days a year. If they get that balance right, people can make personal donations, but also make donations that help not just one person but a range of people in vulnerable situations.
    Mrs. Ann Winterton: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the highest priority is to act against those who push drugs to the young? Will he adopt the Opposition's proposals to introduce a seven-year minimum sentence for any adult convicted for the third time of supplying drugs to children?
    Mr. McCartney: The Government are deeply committed to getting drug dealers off the backs of our young people and out of our communities. We are also deeply committed on a national and international basis to dealing with drug barons who operate in the international marketplace and continually try to breach this country's defences and promote drugs to our young children. The Government have taken a range of measures, and we are prepared to do more.
    Some months ago a new process was introduced to deal with the seizure of the assets of criminals and to make certain when drug dealers are prosecuted that further action is taken against them. I have a simple view. In some instances of people who are found guilty of drug dealing, I would lock them up and throw the key away.

    Interdepartmental Co-ordination
    Mr. Andrew George: What recent assessment she has made of the Government's progress on interdepartmental co-ordination. [133638]
    The Minister for the Cabinet Office (Marjorie Mowlam): The Government have taken a wide range of steps to improve the way in which Departments work together, including the creation of cross-cutting teams working on issues such as social exclusion. They have also set out a blueprint for co-operation in the
    696
    performance and innovation unit's report "Wiring it up", and I will be reporting to the Prime Minister on progress against this early next year.
    Mr. George: Does the Minister accept that local communities that need help now face a growing snow storm of disconnected initiatives and schemes? Although places such as Cornwall are grateful for all the action zones, sure starts and new deals, and the many other silos of funding through many Government Departments, the average local person needs a PhD to comprehend interdepartmental complexities before they can even get to first base. Does the Minister share the growing fear that local authorities are becoming weighed down with bureaucratic overload as they get stuck on the treadmill of perpetual bidding?
    Marjorie Mowlam: We are working with local authorities to deal with any potential difficulties in this area. The national neighbourhood renewal strategy will help to build communities and work with services such as the voluntary, police, health and probation services to deliver services on the ground. To make sure that the situation that the hon. Gentleman describes does not come about, we have recently ensured, for example, that the drug action teams have borders that coincide with those of the local authority and youth teams. We have a good example of best practice, where the strategy is working, and we will certainly share it with the hon. Gentleman's authority if it is facing difficulties.
    Mr. David Watts: Given the damning findings of the Phillips report, will my right hon. Friend look at how we can make our civil service more accountable?
    Marjorie Mowlam: When we consider the Phillips report and the difficulties that BSE created, our first thought is with the victims and their families. We are looking hard to see what we can do in terms of compensation. In terms of the civil service, some changes will be made under the 167 recommendations in the Phillips report, which we are now considering. We will certainly tie any recommendations into the modernising government strategy, which aims to update, reform and innovate within the civil service.
    Mr. John Wilkinson: Will the right hon. Lady be sending her cost-cutting teams into the national health service, which is wasting millions of pounds of taxpayers' money on a changeover plan to adopt the euro? Is it not the case that the programme is not compatible with the line taken by her right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, who said, during his trip to Tokyo, that if there were a referendum tomorrow, he would not sign up for the euro?
    Marjorie Mowlam: It is in line with the Prime Minister's position, which is that we will go into Europe and accept the euro when it is in our own economic interest in terms of the five criteria.
    As for the NHS—that it is changing for the future can be only positive. We must never forget that the NHS is being rebuilt after the privatisation package that the Conservative Government tried to introduce. We had to

    697
    pull back from the privatisation under the previous Government and start to ensure that the NHS was available for everybody in this country.
    Mr. Michael Clapham: My right hon. Friend will be aware that if we are to exercise control over the arms trade, we need cross-departmental working. In 1996, some time ago, the Select Committee on Trade and Industry recommended cross-departmental working after the BMARC—British Manufacturing and Research Company—report. Are plans in progress for the Ministry of Defence, the Department of Trade and Industry, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the security services to work together so as to get a grip on the arms trade?
    Marjorie Mowlam: I do not know the agenda items for the meetings of those groups, but I know that they meet to look at a host of issues. I will report to my hon. Friend by letter as to whether the topic in which he is interested has been covered recently.

    Special Advisers
    Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: If she will make a statement on the co-ordination of the role of special advisers in Government Departments. [133639]
    The Minister for the Cabinet Office (Marjorie Mowlam): The duties and responsibilities of special advisers are set out in the model contract for special advisers, a copy of which is in the Library.
    Mr. St. Aubyn: The number of special advisers has risen from 38 four years ago to 79 at present. If those advisers are so special, will the Minister tell us of one positive, original contribution made by them during the past year to the delivery of services to the British public who are paying their high salaries?
    Marjorie Mowlam: We have never hidden the fact that we would use more special advisers than the previous Conservative Government. We have always been open and transparent. We publish a code of conduct for special advisers so that there can be no question as to what they do. We publish details of how much they are paid; the process is completely open and transparent.
    I can answer his question only by reference to my two special advisers. On drugs, they have carried out work on different programmes and options and have come up with some extremely creative ideas. On genetically modified foods, they have also worked hard and produced some interesting ideas. I am sure that that holds true for every other Department.
    Mr. Dennis Skinner: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the number of special advisers to almost every party represented in the House has increased since 1997, and especially to the Tory Opposition, because the Short money was increased from £1 million to £3 million plus? If the Tories have not spent the money on special advisers, but have transferred it to their head office across the road, it is high time we knew where the money has gone, because there could be a fiddle.
    Marjorie Mowlam: I listened carefully to my hon. Friend, as I am sure you did too, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: Do special advisers have access to the knowledge network? If so, what safeguards are there to ensure that the knowledge network is not used for party political purposes?
    Marjorie Mowlam: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that special advisers do have access to the knowledge network. The reports that they make to their Ministers will go on the knowledge network and will be shared across Departments, to increase efficiency and effectiveness and to ensure that Government Departments join up more—which is the nature of this question—than they do now. After that, information will be made available on a broader front where possible.

    Information Technology
    Barbara Follett: What steps her Department is taking to promote the use of information technology among the older members of the population. [133640]
    The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Mr. Ian McCartney): Over 13,000 people have already started free training courses at 843 centres under the UK online computer training initiative. Around half of those who have joined are over 50 and around 18 per cent. are of retirement age. The older population is one of the key target groups for the first 600 UK online centres, which will be rolled out early next year, with approximately 6,000 by the year 2002.
    Barbara Follett: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply and welcome the work that has already been done. Would he do all that he can to ensure that older people are aware of the existence of subsidised IT training schemes, such as the learning shop scheme that is being run by North Hertfordshire college in Stevenage?
    Mr. McCartney: Like our grandparents, I am very keen to ensure that older people gain access to IT. Throughout the country, a range of initiatives are taking place at the moment, including the rolling out of a programme to the 2,000 most deprived communities in Britain; and one of the target groups in those communities is older people. Therefore, the Government are absolutely committed at every stage to invest in providing such access, not just for older people but across the board, so that our society is not divided into the information-rich and the information-poor. Everyone must have access to the net, including older people.
    Mr. Paul Tyler: I doubt whether any members of the ministerial team qualify for that description, but I certainly do. May I ask the Minister to look again at the way in which his colleagues in other Departments communicate with Members of the House by way of information technology? I instance a case where I wrote to the Minister of Agriculture in April. He tells me that he sent a reply in July, but because the courier did not deliver, it did not arrive until last week. Given the co-ordinating role that the Cabinet Office and the Minister

    699
    have with other Departments, may we look again at the communication between Departments and Members of the House?
    Mr. McCartney: I give this absolute commitment to the hon. Member—I nearly said "the older Member". The whole process of the modernising government strategy and of the co-ordinated IT strategy is to ensure that Members of the House are properly serviced by Departments. I give him this assurance. If Members do have a problem, they should come to Mr. Fixit and we shall see what we can do.
    Mr. Speaker: I call Mr. Wyatt.
    Mr. Derek Wyatt: Thank you for calling me, Mr. Fixit.
    Every community in the world has its digital divide, and the Minister will have seen the G8 papers on that. I wonder whether, for the older people in our country, we might pilot an initiative to give them access on a bank holiday to the computers in schools and businesses, where we can give them teaching and training. That is what they need most of all because they fear new technology.
    Mr. McCartney: That is a fair point. A key area that we are investing in is skills. As part of that process, I am monitoring regularly to ensure that older people are getting access to information technology, training, and sometimes upskilling and new training. If my hon. Friend has any ideas on that, I am prepared to meet him and see what we can do to help.

    Legislation
    Mr. Tony Baldry: What role she plays in the mechanism of preparing Government legislation. [133641]
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr. Graham Stringer): My right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office takes responsibility for legislation emanating from the Cabinet Office, and as a member of the Cabinet takes collective responsibility for the whole of the legislative programme.
    Mr. Baldry: The Minister will be aware that we have not had a state opening of Parliament in December since 1921. The fact that we are to have a state opening in December this year is a consequence of too much legislation, too hastily drafted and too hastily rushed through the House. Who in the Cabinet has the responsibility for ensuring that this situation does not happen again and that legislation is properly drafted and properly considered?
    Mr. Stringer: I thank the hon. Gentleman for the information about 1921. I was not aware of it. However, I was aware that in this Session the Government have introduced 41 Bills, in the 1981–82 Session the previous Conservative Government introduced 46 Bills in the 1985–86 Session they introduced 49 Bills. [Interruption.] It is not the number of Bills that is significant; it is the fact that the Conservative—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The Minister must have a hearing.
    Mr. Stringer: It is the fact that, in the other place, twice as many amendments have been passed with Conservative support against the Government as were passed against the Government when the Conservatives were in power.
    Mr. Andrew Lansley: The Minister said that the Minister for the Cabinet Office is responsible for Bills emanating from the Cabinet Office. However, he may recall that the Queen's Speech a year ago said that legislation would be introduced
    to increase the effectiveness of the power to remove regulatory burdens.—[Official Report, 17 November 1999; Vol. 339, c. 5.]
    Will he therefore explain to the House why the only Cabinet Office Bill promised in the Queen's Speech has not materialised?
    Mr. Stringer: As hon. Gentleman knows, in April this year the Regulatory Reform Bill was published. It has been the subject of intensive consultation, both with the Deregulation Committee in this House and the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee in the other place. The fact is that so many Bills have been stopped in the other place that, if we had introduced the Bill this Session, there would have been an even greater legislative logjam. The Government are committed to introducing the Bill at the earliest possible opportunity.
    Mr. Lansley: The fact is that deregulation is not a sufficient priority for the Government. One of the Minister's responsibilities is to examine the burdens imposed by legislation. Can he explain why the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales has reported that the costs to small businesses of implementing new legislation in the year to July 2000 was nearly double that of implementing new legislation in the preceding year? Not only are the Government increasing the burdens of regulation on business, but the rate at which those burdens are increasing has nearly doubled year on year. Can the Minister explain that?
    Mr. Stringer: Improving the quality of regulation remains a Government priority. I have seen a number of statements emanating from the Federation of Small Businesses, the British Chambers of Commerce and the Conservative party and they have all massively confused the cost of administration with the actual cost of the policy. The Government make no apology for introducing the minimum wage; we make no apology for giving people—for the first time in many cases—the right to a holiday; and we make no apology for protecting people. We are committed to improving the quality of the regulatory framework.

    Deregulation
    Mr. Peter L. Pike: What action she has taken to improve the scope of deregulation since October 1999. [133642]
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr. Graham Stringer): The answer to my hon. Friend is very similar to the answer that I gave to the

    701
    hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley). We published the Regulatory Reform Bill in April and we shall introduce it at the earliest possible opportunity.
    Mr. Pike: Is it not a fact that the Government's consultation and pre-legislative scrutiny on this Bill have been exemplary and show a positive way forward for the Government's introduction of legislation? Given what the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) said, is my hon. Friend the Minister surprised to learn that Conservative Members did not participate in the scrutiny of the Bill? They showed no interest whatsoever in deregulation.
    Mr. Stringer: I thank my hon. Friend for that comment. I also want to thank him and the Deregulation Committee for the valuable contribution that they made during the consultation exercise. I am not at all surprised that Conservative Members did not participate in the consultation process. If they had done, they might have learned something about improving the quality of regulation. The shadow Chancellor and the Leader of the Opposition would then have used the same figures instead of figures differing by £5 billion when they talked about the regulatory burden on this country.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: Surely the Minister knows that his own Government introduced an Act to ensure that new regulations would cover the employment agencies industry. Does he accept that those regulations have appeared in several draft forms and that the industry is in turmoil wondering what the Government will do? That is not better regulation, but interference with an industry that did not need changing.
    Mr. Stringer: Many Conservative Members want it both ways. They want full consultation on the process and they want decisions to be taken immediately. They cannot have it both ways. The Government are committed to improving both the quality of legislation and the quality of consultation.
    Mr. Stephen Pound: Does my hon. Friend accept that there is such a thing as deregulation too far, and that the past few weeks have shown us that a bonfire of regulations may on occasion lead to a blazing furnace of diseased cattle?
    Mr. Stringer: I thank my hon. Friend for that question. This Government are committed to protecting people as well as to improving the quality of regulation. That always depends on striking the right balance between protecting people and the benefits of any proposed legislation.

  The Prime Minister was asked—
  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Ql. [133667] Mr. Eric Illsley: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 1 November.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further such meetings later today.
    I should like to take this opportunity to express my appreciation to the local authorities and the emergency services for their unstinting efforts and all their work in helping and supporting people affected by the recent storms. I am sure that the House will also join me in offering sympathy to all those people in the areas affected.
    Mr. Illsley: Given the absolute shambles into which our national railways have descended as a consequence of the disastrous Tory privatisation and the subsequent failure of Railtrack and the train operating companies to invest in even the most basic safety measures, does my right hon. Friend think that it is now time to look again at the structure of our national railways, including the number of train operating companies—
    The Prime Minister rose—
    Mr. Illsley: I can understand my right hon. Friend's enthusiasm for me to sit down, but does he think that it is time to look again at our national railway industry, particularly at reducing the number of train operating companies and perhaps at returning Railtrack to public ownership?
    The Prime Minister: Perhaps I got up at the right point; I do not know.
    Of course there are structural questions about the railways. That is one reason why the creation of the Strategic Rail Authority gives us the opportunity to deal with the problems of fragmentation in respect of privatisation. The other thing that is absolutely vital is extra investment in the railways. Through the transport plan, we have the opportunity over the next 10 years for—literally—the largest ever infrastructure investment in our railways that the country has ever seen. It is vital—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I will not tolerate the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) interrupting all the time.
    The Prime Minister: It is vital that we get this extra investment in the railways, and one reason why the Conservative plans to cut that investment and impose £16 billion worth of cuts on our public services would be so disastrous.
    Mr. William Hague: On behalf of the Opposition, may I associate myself with the Prime Minister's opening remarks and the tribute that he has paid to local authorities and emergency services that have coped in extreme circumstances, and with the condolences that he has sent to the families of people who were tragically killed?
    On another cross-party matter, as we approach Remembrance day and the thoughts of the nation turn once again to those men and women who gave their lives or suffered terrible injuries in defence of our freedom, would not it be an appropriate time to do the following two things? First, in the light of the Canadian judgment two years ago,

    703
    should not Members on both sides of the House agree to overturn the policies of successive Governments—Labour and Conservative—and compensate the remaining survivors of far east prisoner of war camps?
    Secondly, will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the Government will support our call today for a permanent memorial in London and in Northern Ireland as a fitting tribute to those members of the armed forces and the Royal Ulster Constabulary who have died defending the whole of the United Kingdom from terrorism over the past 30 years?
    The Prime Minister: We are indeed sympathetic to the latter point, which is why it was announced earlier that we are looking at the prospect of putting up a memorial to the officers and soldiers who have died. Their bravery was absolutely outstanding throughout the entirety of the troubles.
    As for far east prisoners of war, I cannot add anything to what I said last week, because they are one of the matters with which the pre-Budget report deals. However, it is the case that successive Governments have failed to make good our obligation to those people; the Conservative Government failed to do so during their 18 years in office. I hope that we shall be able to do something for them and that, when we do so, it will be taken as a recognition of the enormous debt of gratitude owed by the whole country.
    Mr. Hague: I thank the Prime Minister for his reply about the memorial and we look forward to next week's announcement in the hope that it will be treated in that spirit and not in a party political spirit.
    Turning to more controversial matters, since the Government's pre-Budget statement is always characterised by endless spin, cynical distortion and gross omissions, will the right hon. Gentleman admit today what the total tax burden on the country was when he took office and what it is today?
    The Prime Minister: As I have said many times before, the tax burden this year is falling. It is correct to say that we tightened fiscal policy in our first two years in government, but I am pleased to be able to say that that policy was relaxed and the tax burden increased by more when the right hon. Gentleman was a member of the Cabinet, during the last two years of Conservative Government.
    Mr. Hague: Why can the Prime Minister not give a straight answer to a straight question? Why can he not give the figures? There must be something in the folder through which he is leafing, and we are happy to wait for him to find the answer. In fact, the total tax burden was 35 per cent. when he took office and it is 37 per cent. today. The typical hard-working family in Britain faces £670 a year in extra tax. Is he aware that figures from the House of Commons Library, which are to be published this afternoon, show that the tax burden on businesses and families is now higher, under his Government, than at any time in the history of Britain?
    The Prime Minister: That is nonsense, and I can deal with both the right hon. Gentleman's points. In fact, the figure was 35.3 per cent. when we entered office. It is correct to say that the tax burden went up in our first two
    704
    years in government; it is coming down this year. However, the increase is less than occurred in the last two years of Conservative Government, when the figures, from memory, were 33.3 per cent. and 35.3 per cent. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will explain how he came to be a member of a Cabinet that raised the tax burden in that way.
    As for the right hon. Gentleman's £670—the figure Conservatives keep mentioning—we have done a little research into it. Of that sum, £400 is assumed to be the result of the changes in advance corporation tax that were made a few years ago, whereas, in fact, as a result of pension funds rising 70 per cent. because of rises in the stock market since the election, those sums are entirely illusory. The next £200 is based on the assumption that every family in the country smokes at least 20 to 30 cigarettes a day. That is why the House of Commons research on which the Conservatives base their claim stated, in terms, that the figures were not for a typical family.
    Mr. Hague: Those are the increased taxes. Now we know why so many people think that the right hon. Gentleman is an out-of-touch and arrogant Prime Minister—those are the taxes that people pay on their petrol, pension, marriage and mortgage which he and the Chancellor have levied. If he does not know that they are now the highest in history, he is in for a shock, because that is what the figures published today by the House of Commons Library will clearly demonstrate. The people hit hardest by his stealth taxes are the poorest in the country. Let him look in his folder for some Government figures from the Office for National Statistics and tell us what proportion of the income of the poorest households was paid in tax when he took office, and what proportion is paid today.
    The Prime Minister: First, on mortgages, as a result of getting rid of Tory boom-and-bust economics—[Interruption.] let me give the right hon. Gentleman the facts. Under the previous Conservative Government, interest rates averaged 10 per cent; under this Government, they have averaged 6 per cent. That is a saving of £1,000 a year for the average family.
    The right hon. Gentleman referred to fuel tax, and we have done a little research on that. In the previous Parliament, fuel tax was raised by more during the period of office of the Government of whom he was a member than it has been raised in this Parliament.
    As for the tax burden on ordinary families, the working families tax credit is the best thing that has happened to lower income families for years. However, the right hon. Gentleman is committed to getting rid of it. The £16 billion worth of spending cuts—that is the Tory commitment, which he can deny if he dare—would hit schools, hospitals, police and transport. Labour is the party that is standing up for hard-working families. The right hon. Gentleman is the leader of a party that would return them to boom and bust.
    Mr. Hague: That would be a fine answer if this were Prime Minister's waffle time, but it is Prime Minister's Question Time. The figures from the Office for National Statistics show that in 1997 the poorest fifth of households paid 37p of every pound of income in tax, and now pay 40p to the Chancellor, which is another record.

    705
    These people thought that the Government would help them, and they have been utterly betrayed. One reason for that is that petrol tax increases have hit the poorest people. What was the tax—will the Prime Minister tell us properly and factually this time—on a litre of petrol when he took office, and what is it today?
    The Prime Minister: I have already said that the tax on a litre of petrol increased in the previous Parliament by more than it has in this Parliament. As the right hon. Gentleman is saying that he would cut the duty on fuel, how come that in between the Budget and the protests he never gave that commitment? I shall quote from his interview on GMTV on 13 September, when he said:
    We wouldn't cut taxes today because there's been a protest yesterday. You can't run the country like that.
    Absolutely right, we cannot.
    Whatever we can do on fuel, it cannot be at the expense of people's mortgages increasing or being unable to do something for pensioners, or being unable to meet the commitment to invest in public services, which is vital.
    The right hon. Gentleman's policies—the £16 billion worth of cuts and boom-and-bust economics—would return us to the position of the late 1980s and early 1990s, when the Conservatives destroyed the homes of millions of working families, when they put them out of work, when they sent their mortgages through the roof and when they increased their taxes. The country never wants to go back to those days.
    Mr. Hague: We have not had a single straight or factual answer to a question. The tax on a litre of fuel has been increased by the Prime Minister from 46p to 61p, the fastest rise in three years in the history of the country. Is it not clear that the right hon. Gentleman has given us the fastest rise in petrol prices, the biggest tax rise for the least well-off and the highest tax burden in the history of the country? He is the Prime Minister of the heaviest taxes, the largest increases, the deepest distortions and the shallowest answers ever in the history of Britain.
    The Prime Minister: As I have said—the right hon. Gentleman has not disputed this—fuel duties rose more in the previous Parliament than they have during this Parliament. However, there is another point. It is important for families to have economic stability after the years of boom and bust, and we are delivering that for them. It is important also that we have more people in work, and there are 1 million more in work today than there were a few years ago. Further, it is important that we get investment in our schools, hospitals and transport system, and we are getting that.
    In addition, it is important that we do something for the poorest people in our country. That is why the new deal, the working families tax credit, the rises in child benefit and the extra help for child care are important. On each of these things, there is the clearest possible choice between the political parties. There is stability under Labour and the highest levels ever of employment, or a return to boom and bust under the right hon. Gentleman, and 3 million unemployed. The choice is between investment in our public services or cuts under him. The
    706
    choice is between help for the poorest families or cuts to the new deal, to the working families tax credit and even—the Conservatives admitted this today—to free television licences for the over-75s. When those choices are put before the country, the right hon. Gentleman's jokes will not be enough. When it comes down to policy, he gets it wrong every time.
    Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Some hon. Members have said that they cannot hear. Hon. Members on both sides of the House should give the Prime Minister and other right hon. and hon. Members a hearing.
    Mr. Phil Hope: Is my right hon. Friend aware that people from my constituency are among those most at risk in the country from dying early from coronary heart disease? Although I welcome the new £50,000 chest pain clinic that will open in our local hospital in January, can he assure me that the Government will invest more in coronary heart care through a national health service that is free at the point of delivery and based on medical need, and not through madcap private medical insurance schemes proposed by the Conservative party that are based on ability to pay?
    The Prime Minister: I can assure my hon. Friend that we will continue to put the largest ever investment into the health service. That is one reason why, as a BBC survey revealed today, 90 per cent. of health authorities believe that they are better prepared for the winter because there will be more available beds and more nurses.
    Again, the choice could not be clearer: the Conservatives plan to spend £700 million just by giving tax relief to people who already have private medical insurance. Let me explain so that people understand what that would mean: all the extra help for this winter—the beds, nurses and planning—would be lost. We need a national health service fit for all the country, not simply a private sector for the few.
    Mr. Charles Kennedy: The Prime Minister said to the leader of the Conservative party that he wanted to give more support to our pensioners. The whole House would agree with that. Will he acknowledge that when people in this country reach the age of 80, they receive, under his policies, the princely sum of an extra 25p a week? Does he agree with the Minister of State, Department of Social Security—his pensions Minister—who described that as an insult and
    a festering sore on the National Insurance System?
    If so, will he do something about it?
    The Prime Minister: I like to think that we have done something about it. The £150 winter fuel allowance and free television licences for pensioners over the age of 75 show that we are helping people already. No one could possibly claim—and I do not—that the supplement to

    707
    people at the age of 80 greatly assists them but, having done a significant amount for pensioners in this Parliament, I hope that we can do more.
    Mr. Kennedy: I think that the House hopes that, next week, the Prime Minister and the Chancellor will do more. As his pensions Minister acknowledged, many people of that age send the 25p back
    because they feel insulted by it.
    If the pensions Minister believes that the Government are insulting pensioners, the Government must do something about it. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell his Chancellor—and strengthen his resolve—that next week the country and the Commons will be looking for a good deal more support, especially for our elderly pensioners?
    The Prime Minister: I am sure that the country will be looking for that support, but I do not think that anyone has ever pretended that the supplement at the age of 80 is additional or proper recompense for pensioners of that age. [HON. MEMBERS: "Change it."] There are all sorts of ways to get more financial help to pensioners. I have outlined some of our measures. The Chancellor has, of course, already introduced the minimum income guarantee for the very poorest pensioners. It is worth again pointing out that about 500,000 pensioners in this country, usually elderly women whose husbands may not have made proper contributions or who have not themselves made contributions, do not get a basic state pension. Obviously we wanted to help those people first. We now recognise that we need to do more for those who may be above benefit levels and who have saved all their lives, and we will do that.
    I would add one further thing. We are talking about a surplus and how we use it for the best benefit of the country. It is worth reflecting, however, that a few years ago, we were not talking about a surplus. We had a doubled national debt and a £28 billion borrowing requirement. Whatever we do, we must make sure that it is limited by what is sensible in the overall interests of the economy. If we simply treat the surplus as something that we can spend overnight, without thinking about tomorrow, we will repeat exactly the mistakes that the country made in the late 1980s and early 1990s. What started off in 1989 as big tax cuts and big spending increases very soon ended in recession, job losses, spending cuts and, finally, tax rises.
    Mr. Stephen Hepburn: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is wrong for the fuel protesters to go under the banner of the Jarrow crusade? If those protesters are so considerate of their fellow working man, should not people ask where they were in the 1980s, during the miners strike? Furthermore, is not the destitution experienced by the Jarrow marchers and their families during the 1930s incomparable with the relative prosperity that exists today? Is not the proposed action a cheap publicity stunt?
    The Prime Minister: The circumstances of the Jarrow march were completely different. I make two additional points to my hon. Friend. First, however strongly the protesters feel, it cannot be right for them to try and demonstrate their feelings by interfering with the
    708
    country's food supplies or bringing the country to a halt. That is not a responsible way to behave, no matter how strongly they feel.
    Secondly, it is important for the protesters to realise that were we to accede to their demands, that would have one of three effects, without any doubt whatever: interest rates, and therefore people's mortgages, would go up, or there would be less scope for helping pensioners, or we would have to reduce spending on public services. We will do what we can, but we will not do anything that puts at risk the strength of the economy or the support for essential public services.
    Dr. Vincent Cable: First, I thank the Prime Minister for visiting my constituency two weeks ago to commemorate the death of a police officer, PC Kalwant Sidhu, killed pursuing criminals in Twickenham.
    Secondly, on the law and order theme, is the Prime Minister aware of the evidence that was presented to Parliament yesterday by senior oil industry executives of 180 documented cases of violent intimidation by some of the people whom the leader of the Conservative party described as fine, upstanding Englishmen? Can the House have an assurance that if there is further disruption by the fuel protesters involving intimidation or blockage of the public highway, the police will act quickly and decisively to uphold the law?
    The Prime Minister: I am sure that the police will act quickly and decisively, but it is wrong that they should be put in such a situation. As I said a moment ago, we have a right of protest and demonstration in this country, but people should protest in a way that is lawful and that does not bring the entire country to a halt. That cannot be right. Whatever people feel about the price of fuel, it is important that the demonstrations take place in a way that is responsible, not extreme and irresponsible.
    Mr. Peter Bradley: Is the Prime Minister aware that since May 1997 there are an additional 47 teachers in classrooms in The Wrekin, and 37 additional classroom assistants? Is he aware that that is one of the reasons why standards of numeracy and literacy are rising, and why there is now not a single five, six or seven-year-old anywhere in The Wrekin or in Shropshire in a class of more than 30? Will my right hon. Friend join me in commending the education authorities of Telford, The Wrekin and Shropshire county council, and above all the governors and teachers in the schools, who are delivering that change?
    Will he please acknowledge also that every welcome initiative from the Department for Education and Employment brings with it a bureaucratic burden on teachers, from which they desperately need to be released so that they can do their best work, which is in the classroom?
    The Prime Minister: I appreciate that there is always a tension between the desire to make sure that the initiatives are carried through and that teachers are not overburdened with paperwork.
    On class sizes, I pay tribute to the schools, and especially the teachers who have managed the process of change. According to today's figures, some 450,000 fewer

    709
    infants are in classes of more than 30. That is a fantastic achievement, which has been made possible only by the extra investment that we have put in. We announced in September the best primary school results that the country has ever had. That, too, was made possible only by the investment that we have made. That is why it is so important that we make the extra investment in education and that we do not follow the Conservative party's path, which would lead to cutting that investment.
    Mr. Richard Spring: Is the Prime Minister aware of the anxiety of frail and elderly people in East Anglia? Since the summer, they have had to endure circumstances in which the hospitals in the region have been on red alert because of an admissions crisis. Does he know that the number of blocked beds in Suffolk hospitals is now at an all-time high due to the dehumanising incompetence of the county council, which is Labour led, but propped up by the Liberal Democrats?
    The Prime Minister: I shall get back to the hon. Gentleman on the specific question about his health authority; I think that he has given a one-sided view of what has happened there.
    In general terms, it is important that we make additional investment in the health service. The investment in extra nurses, doctors, hospital buildings, information technology and critical care beds is important. However, the Government are committed to making that investment in the health service whereas the hon. Gentleman's party is committed to cutting it.
    Ms Rosie Winterton: The Prime Minister will know that two young people from Armthorpe in my constituency died tragically from vCJD. It has now emerged that a third victim also had close links with Armthorpe. In view of that, can my right hon. Friend assure me that potential clusters of vCJD cases will be fully investigated and that the results will be made public as soon as possible?
    The Prime Minister: At the moment, an investigation into the so-called clusters is taking place, and the results will be published. In addition, the Government are establishing a fund, which will benefit sufferers and the families of people who have died. We are therefore trying to ensure that we gauge the exact scale of the problem and whether there is some new variant of CJD. We shall carry on working on that. When the results are available, we will make sure that they are published.
    Mr. Tony Baldry: May I ask the Prime Minister a question of which I have given him notice, and that follows on from the previous question? Who, in the machinery of government, now has responsibility for determining policy on risk and hazard in food and health? Who is responsible for promulgating those risks to the public? If the policy should fail at any time in future, what are the criteria for compensation?
    The Prime Minister: The latter point will probably have to be judged on each case that arises. On the first point, the Government have overall control of policy, but the purpose of establishing the new Food Standards Agency was to try to improve the transparency of the advice that we get. We have also tried to achieve that with scientific advisory committees, to which we have appointed consumer representatives. I believe that the Food Standards Agency will give us a better objective basis on which we can make the assessments.
    However, in government, we will find the balance between risk and the public policy measures to limit it increasingly difficult to strike. That applies across a range of issues. A sensible and reasonable debate about that is a necessary aspect of getting public policy right. BSE is one of the most dramatic instances, but there are other examples of difficult balances to be struck. Whatever the transparency of the information that we give people, difficult public policy judgments remain, and they have to be made by Government. They are more easily made by Government if they are informed by a proper public debate on the balance between risk and policy.
    Mr. Tom Clarke: Does the Prime Minister share the profound anxiety of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment about the aspect of the Royal National Institute for the Blind report that dealt with bullying of young people who are blind or have sight impairments? Does he agree that the best response is to consider the complete eradication of bullying by amending the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, which would thereby give children the right that adults already have?
    The Prime Minister: Perhaps I could write to my right hon. Friend about his last point. As for his first point, it is precisely because we are worried about the impact in schools on those who are blind or partially sighted that we have made additional money available for special educational needs. I hope very much that that money will enable us not just to offer such pupils a better form of teaching, but a better environment in which to be taught.

Points of Order
3.31 pm
Mr. Paul Flynn: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker—
Dr. Vincent Cable rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am taking a point of order from the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn).
Mr. Flynn: May I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to use your office to intervene in a matter of great importance and urgency?
Under the new Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Act 2000, the Government Actuary is obliged to lay before Parliament a report on the effect on the national insurance fund of the likely results of linking the basic pension to the level of earnings up to 2005. I have seen a letter from the Deputy Government Actuary dated 28 September, in which he wrote:
The report on the financial impact of price and earnings indexation of the basic pension is now at a very advanced stage, and I am hoping to be able to submit it to the Secretary of State next week.
He continued:
This will enable him to lay it before Parliament when the House returns following the Summer Recess.
Questions have been tabled by three hon. Members, all of whom have received similar replies—one as recently as yesterday—in which the Minister has said:
The Government Actuary is currently finalising his report. It will be published when it is completed.—[Official Report, 26 October 2000; Vol. 355, c. 160W.]
When a member of my staff telephoned the Deputy Government Actuary the day before yesterday and asked him to confirm that the report had not been submitted to the Secretary of State, the Deputy Government Actuary refused to do so. Another Member's office has been told—so the office has reported to me—that the matter will not be laid before the House until after next week's statement.
The matter is of the greatest importance if the House is to make a sensible judgment on changes in the pension, particularly changes in the basic pension and the link with it. In 1934, a Minister delayed a report to the House in similar circumstances, using the pretext of sending the report back—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman was kind enough to notify me of his point of order, but it cannot be a speech. He is making what is almost an Adjournment debate case. I will reply to the point of order now, because it is delaying the business of the House.
I have read the section to which the hon. Gentleman referred. It lays a duty on the Government Actuary to make a report, and on the Government to lay it before the House. It does not say when that must be done. If the hon. Gentleman has views on the matter, he must take it up with Ministers; it is not a matter for the Chair.
Dr. Cable: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Flynn rose—
Mr. Speaker: I shall take a point of order from the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable). The hon. Member for Newport, West may wish to intervene on another point of order. He was a bit slow off the mark.
Dr. Cable: May I ask you, Mr. Speaker, for a ruling on a decision made this morning in Westminster Hall? Under the sub judice rule, a Treasury Minister and I were not allowed to refer to an important case involving a large number of our constituents with life insurance policies. It related to orphan assets. What is odd is that that legal case is being widely debated in the national press. Ministers have—rightly—written articles in the Daily Mail debating the merits of the case. However, I, as a Member of Parliament, am not allowed to question a Minister in the House on her speech, or on comments outside. How can we perform our role of holding Ministers to account when sub judice rules so inhibit our freedom of expression?
Mr. Speaker: Order. [Interruption.] I am going to reply to the point of order.
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving notice of the point of order. I shall establish the facts of the case to which he refers and will write to him on the matter. I do not think that there is anything to add to that. I shall look into the matter—he cannot get any better than that.
Mr. Paul Tyler: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is a very small point. I recall that the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege considered this issue, and it is important to clarify the matter. Will you make a ruling and report it to the House, rather than simply corresponding with my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable), because issues of considerable importance have been raised?
Mr. Speaker: I shall consider the hon. Gentleman's suggestion.
Mr. Flynn rose—
Sir Peter Emery rose—
Mr. Speaker: I shall go back to Mr. Flynn.
Mr. Flynn: Further to my point of order, Mr. Speaker. As the defender of Back Benchers' rights, can you advise me how a Back Bencher should proceed after he has raised a matter in the presence of 200 other hon. Members and the Prime Minister, asked for support and information and raised the matter with other Ministers in written questions? Who should he go to then to seek advice on information that is essential to do our job? Should he go to the Speaker, or should he go elsewhere?
Mr. Speaker: I have known the hon. Gentleman for many years and, if I were seeking to raise any matter in the House, I would probably go to him for advice. [Laughter.]
Sir Peter Emery: Now follow that.

713
Further to the point of order that was raised by the hon. Members for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) and for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler), Mr. Speaker. The House has been worried for a considerable time not just about the specific issue that is before you, but about the overall position of the sub judice rule, given that so many matters are already in the press and being discussed on television and elsewhere. The sub judice rule obviously had a major influence when the media did not discuss matters that were before the courts, but I now wonder how great that influence is. Could you and the Clerks consider whether there should be some new thinking about the sub judice rule and whether that could be done by a Committee of the House or yourself? There is a need to consider the matter further.
Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman has given me food for thought, but we must consider the rights of the individual; we must always worry about that.
Mr. John Bercow: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I should be most grateful to you for your guidance. Can you advise me whether the prohibition on tabling written questions that seek to extract Ministers' interpretation of treaty articles also applies to oral questions?
Mr. Speaker: The same rules apply. I hope that the hon. Gentleman understands that reply.
Mr. John Butterfill: Further to the point of order on orphan assets, Mr. Speaker. Could we not distinguish between a matter that involves a specific case that is before the courts and a general discussion of what the public policy should be in relation to orphan assets?
Mr. Speaker: My understanding is that that distinction is recognised under the rule.

Companies Act (Amendment)
3.39 pm
Mr. Dafydd Wigley: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the law to require directors of public companies, in cases where there is a takeover, to have regard to the interests of employees as well as shareholders.
As this is the first time that I have had the opportunity to address the House since your election, Mr. Speaker, may I congratulate you on it and pass on every good wish for the future?
As this may be the last time that I present a Bill to the House, may I say how important a subject I still believe greater industrial democracy to be?
I entered the House 26 years ago directly from manufacturing industry. At that time, as now, the contribution of the employee was at least as great as that of capital to the survival and success of any company.
When a business goes to the wall, a shareholder may lose £10,000, and that hurts. The employee loses his or her whole livelihood, yet the whole structure of company law gives rights to those who own the capital but virtually no rights to those who do the work.
The responsibilities of company directors are, in practice, overwhelmingly towards the so-called "members" of the company. That means the shareholders. In the final analysis, any responsibility towards the work force is tenuous and unenforceable in law. The Bill's objective is to redress the balance, particularly in circumstances arising from a company takeover.
Before I go into the detail of the Bill, I cite two instances to support the need for change. Twenty years ago, in my home town of Caernarfon, one of the two large employers in the area was a company called Bernard Wardle, which made PVC products, mainly for the motor industry. There was a takeover. Although the Caernarfon plant was both viable and profitable, it was closed and the work was moved to other factories owned by the new holding company. That work filled spare capacity in those other plants.
The work force at Caernarfon were thrown on to the industrial scrap heap at the whim of the directors of the predator company. Three hundred people were made redundant. The tragedy is that so little has changed in the past 20 years: the factory still stands largely unoccupied, and some of the work force still have not found permanent on-going employment. The structure of company law that allowed such a travesty to occur is still largely in place. That is one case from two decades ago whose shadow remains over my home town—a shadow cast by those absentee directors who cared not one jot for the work force's future.
All directors do not behave in that way. As always, a change in the law is needed to safeguard against worst practice. However, more enlightened directors who want to safeguard the position of employees need to be protected in law if they so act.
A more recent case is still in progress: the takeover of Hyder plc, the main water service provider in Wales. It has recently been subjected to a contested takeover battle. I do not pretend for one moment that the Hyder case is analogous to that of Bernard Wardle, although it could be. Hyder has substantial debts, not least because of the windfall tax and the price regime laid down by

715
the regulator. Two companies were involved in rival takeover bids for Hyder this summer. Without going into the merits of the two bids, the effect of the auction was to push up the offer to shareholders. The valuation per share went up from £2.60 to £3.65, which reflected a total cost to the buyer increasing by £160 million.
The bottom line is that that money must be recouped. The price charged for water is fixed by the regulator, so the only way of recouping the money is by cutting costs. That means a reduction in staff, a worse service to the customer, less investment in the infrastructure or the environment, or a combination of all three of those elements.
Concern was expressed by the National Assembly for Wales, across party political boundaries, that an excessively generous deal for the shareholders could lead to massive job losses in Wales and a worse service for the consumer. Indeed, the water services could be transferred from Wales, with both the customer and the work force paying the price.
I hasten to add that that has not happened yet, but it could still happen. If it does, there will be holy hell to pay in Wales. As you know, Mr. Speaker, water is quite an inflammatory subject in Wales. If our worst forebodings come to pass, the fault will lie not just with directors of the companies who might take such a decision—the very structure of company law, which has been enacted by the House, will be to blame. In our infinite wisdom, we have placed a responsibility on company directors to safeguard the well-being of the shareholder, but we have not enacted an equivalent responsibility to safeguard the well-being of the employee.
There are words in law that appear to cover that, but, in practice, they give no protection. I refer to the legislation that I wish to amend by virtue of the Bill. Section 309(1) of the Companies Act 1985 stipulates:
The matters to which the directors of a company are to have regard in the performance of their functions include the interests of the company's employees in general, as well as the interests of its members.
That sounds all fine and dandy, but immediately following section 309(1) is section 309(2), which states:
Accordingly, the duty imposed by this section on the directors is owed by them to the company (and the company alone).
"The company" means the shareholders. Thus there is no legally enforceable duty to the employees. The Government were expected to undertake a company law
716
review, which would have introduced a stakeholder law. There has been a review, but so far it has led to nothing. It is more than a year since David Wheeler resigned from the company law review because his concept of a third way was firmly crushed.
There are arguments for taking a genuinely pluralist approach to the issue, which recognises the role of all stakeholders, including workers and employees, and for what is quaintly called "enlightened shareholder value", which provides little change from the current position and is the line that the Government seem to support. When David Wheeler resigned, he said:
It strikes me as faintly absurd that a company law review initiated by a modernising government should end up with such a timid and conservative approach.
The time has come for the House to catch up with the reality of the 20th century and the structures of industry before we go much further into the 21st century. My Bill would amend section 309(2) of the Companies Act 1985 so that it states:
The duty owed by directors is owed by them to the company and to the employees of the company.
That would cut out the words "and the company alone" and would specify that responsibility must be exercised, particularly during takeover bids.
Hon. Members of all parties support the Bill, and I urge the House to allow it a First Reading, thereby conveying to all employees that the House regards them as full and equal partners in the new industrial age. I commend the Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Dafydd Wigley, Mr. Kevin Barron, Mrs. Margaret Ewing, Mr. Paul Flynn, Mr. leuan Wyn Jones, Mr. Richard Livsey, Mr. Elfyn Llwyd, Mr. Andrew Mackinlay, Mr. Lembit Öpik, Mr. Andrew Rowe, Rev. Martin Smyth and Mr. Simon Thomas.

Companies Act (Amendment)
  COMPANIES ACT (AMENDMENT)
  Mr. Dafydd Wigley accordingly presented a Bill to amend the law to require directors of public companies, in cases where there is a takeover, to have regard to the interests of employees as well as shareholders: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 10 November, and to be printed [Bill 177].

Defence and the Armed Forces
[Relevant documents: Second Report from the Defence Committee, Session 1999–2000, HC 158. on the Ministry of Defence Annual Reporting Cycle, and the Government's response thereto, HC 452;
Fifth Report from the Defence Committee, Session 1999–2000, HC 100, on the Defence Geographic and Imagery Intelligence Agency, and the Government's response thereto, HC 629;
Eighth Report from the Defence Committee, Session 1999–2000, HC 264, on European Security and Defence, and the Government's response thereto, HC 732;
Thirteenth Report from the Defence Committee, Session 1999–2000, HC 433, on the Iraqi No-Fly Zones, and the Government's response thereto. HC 930;
Fourteenth Report from the Defence Committee, Session 1999–2000, HC 347-1, on Lessons of Kosovo.]
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Sutcliffe.]
3.48 pm
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): It is a privilege to come to the House for the second time in less than a week to debate defence issues. I take this opportunity to welcome the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie), to his rightful place on the Government Benches.
Last week, our focus was on procurement, and I will have still more to say on that subject in a moment. However, our debate today is on the armed forces, of whom we are all justly proud. They do an outstanding job for this country around the world and it is entirely appropriate that the House should devote this debate to a full and thorough discussion of their role and activities over the past year.
The last 12 months have been demanding for our armed forces, but they have responded to their many challenges professionally, with great dedication and with outstanding courage and personal sacrifice. British forces have continued to play an essential role in Bosnia and Kosovo. A year ago, the Kosovo campaign was still fresh in our minds, and our focus was on consolidating the peace that had been won through the allies' successful military campaign last summer. That meant returning more than 1.3 million refugees and displaced people to their homes and villages. Today, more than 800,000 refugees have returned home, the people of Kosovo have taken part in the country's first ever free and fair elections to choose their own representatives, schools in Kosovo have reopened with Albanian children being taught in their own language, and Slobodan Milosevic, who drove tens of thousands of Kosovans from their homes, has himself been driven from power by his own people.
Mr. Julian Brazier: The Secretary of State will undoubtedly be aware that, this morning, it was revealed to the Select Committee on Defence that the extremely political attack by a senior uniformed officer, Sir John Day, on the Defence Committee report on Kosovo was made under pressure. Today, in an open sitting of the Committee, Sir John revealed that he had not chosen to give that interview, but was asked—indeed, pressed—to do so. Will the Secretary of State tell the House whether he intends to continue to use uniformed officers to fight his political battles?
Mr. Hoon: I know Sir John extremely well and, of all the people whom I can think of in the armed forces, he is
718
one of those who are least likely to respond to pressure of any type. The hon. Gentleman is, therefore, absolutely wrong in that assertion.
Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: To settle any disquiet, will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to conduct an inquiry into the matter and to report back on exactly what happened?
Mr. Hoon: I do not see the necessity for an inquiry. I make it quite clear that Sir John—as anyone who knows him will confirm—is simply not a man to respond to that type of pressure. I am afraid that the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) is wrong in his assertion.
Mr. Mike Hancock: It was me who asked Sir John whether he voluntarily instigated or was told to instigate The Sunday Times article. His answer was quite clear and specific: he was told to do so. I should be interested to know whether the Secretary of State or the Chief of the Defence Staff gave that instruction to Sir John. Sir John left the Committee in no doubt today that he instigated that article at the request of someone else.
Mr. Hoon: The two Select Committee members should get their story straight, because we are now hearing two different versions of events. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Opposition Members are not thinking very quickly and carefully about what has just been said.
On the one hand, it has been suggested that a serving officer was subject to some type of pressure. That is an allegation that I most strongly resist. On the other hand, it is being suggested that a serving officer was made to respond to a request from the media for an interview. That is an entirely routine matter, occurring very regularly in the Ministry of Defence. I am really surprised that the hon. Member for Canterbury is raising that as an issue.
Mr. Hancock: The Secretary of State is being deliberately mischievous in trying to mislead the House even further. The point that I was making—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I should not think that the Minister, or any other right hon. or hon. Member, would seek to mislead the House. I take it that the hon. Gentleman wishes to withdraw that remark?
Mr. Hancock: Indeed, Mr. Speaker, on your advice, I certainly do. However, I should not like the impression to be given by any hon. Member that Sir John did anything today other than to confirm that he did not instigate the interview of his volition, but was asked to instigate it. He could have been asked to do that only by a senior politician or a senior person at the Ministry of Defence, such as the Chief of the Defence Staff.
Will the Secretary of State say whether he knew that Sir John had been asked to participate in the interview? If he knew, did he play a role in the making of that request? If he did not play a role, will he investigate who did ask Sir John to participate in the article—which was wholly inaccurate and totally misrepresented the Defence Committee's views.
Mr. Hoon: I make it quite clear to the House that I have no specific knowledge of who made the request.

719
However, the hon. Gentleman is making heavy weather of a very basic situation. It routinely happens that uniformed officers are asked whether they are willing to speak to journalists. I do not regard that as surprising or remarkable in a democratic society. It is then a matter for the officer concerned to decide whether he or she will accept such an invitation. I make it quite clear that that is absolutely routine, and that there is nothing surprising about it at all.
I resisted the earlier suggestion that there was some pressure. The hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) is suggesting not that there was pressure, but that a request was made—of which I have no personal specific knowledge—and dealt with in the usual way inside the Ministry of Defence, and Sir John Day responded. That is not a surprising matter; indeed, it is entirely routine.
Mr. Brazier: Will the Secretary of State give way?
Mr. Hoon: If the hon. Gentleman will set the story straight, I will.
Mr. Brazier: The technology in the House does not yet enable us to have a hard transcript in front of us. However, if the Secretary of State looks at the televised proceedings, he will be left in no doubt that Sir John Day gave the impression that he was under pressure. Furthermore, Sir John gave the Committee information on a variety of matters concerning the Kosovo operation—which the Chairman of the Committee indicated we are likely to follow up later—that was significantly at variance with earlier testimony from Ministers and uniformed witnesses.
Mr. Hoon: I will invite Sir John Day to consider meeting the hon. Gentleman. If he chooses to accept my invitation, I will leave it to the hon. Gentleman to judge whether Sir John Day is a man who responds to that kind of pressure.
Mr. Menzies Campbell: I was not present and, therefore, like the Secretary of State, I will have to rely on the no doubt accurate transcript of what was asked and answered. However, there is another point which may give rise to concern. A Select Committee publishes a report and expects to have a Government response. Is there not some risk that, if senior officers begin to make comments before the Government have made a formal response to a Select Committee report, that will get in the way of the proper relationship between the Select Committee and the Ministers whom it holds to account?
Mr. Hoon: I make it clear that the Government will be responding in due course to the Select Committee report. I hope that that is sufficient on this subject.
Mr. Crispin Blunt rose—
Mr. Hoon: I hope in vain.
Mr. Blunt: What is at issue here is the use of uniformed officers, who clearly have authority and expertise, in the
720
service of Government information. A journalist asking for information—and being given access to expert advice from officers from all over the armed services—is quite different from Ministers and officials in the Department expecting uniformed officers to take part in a propaganda exercise for the Government of the day. That has happened continuously with regard to the Kosovo campaign. I hope that the Secretary of State will understand that this issue is of great concern to the armed forces and to those outside, as it borders on the abuse of military members of the armed forces. I hope that the Secretary of State will cease doing it.
Mr. Hoon: Let me make it quite clear to the hon. Gentleman—it did not happen. He should know better than to stand up in the House of Commons and make assertions that he cannot substantiate, particularly when he has heard me deny any suggestion that the officer was put under any kind of pressure. If the hon. Gentleman wants a civilised debate, he should refrain from making such allegations when he knows full well that I have previously denied that the officer was put under pressure from my office. I have made that absolutely clear.
Mr. Blunt rose—
Mr. Hoon: If the hon. Gentleman is going to apologise for the assertion that he made, I will give way.
Mr. Blunt: I was not referring to what happened with Sir John Day. I was not there, so I do not know what happened. It has been put on the record and the record will attest to it. I was referring to what happened at the beginning of the Kosovo campaign when the Chief of the Defence Staff wrote three articles in the space of a week advocating the Government's position, which was plainly at variance with the military advice that he was giving to the Secretary of State at the time.
Mr. Hoon: I do not accept that. The hon. Gentleman must appreciate that if he gets up and makes assertions following on from one of his colleagues on a particular subject, it is not unreasonable for people to think that he is talking about the same subject. I resist absolutely any suggestion that uniformed officers were used for propaganda purposes on behalf of the Government. That is absurd and it is not the case.
Mr. Hancock: Will the Secretary of State give way?
Mr. Hoon: No, I am going to make progress. We have spent far too long on this subject.
The armed forces have played a major role. Over the past year, they have helped create the stability that has allowed roads, power stations, bridges and railways to be repaired. They have also played a vital role in protecting and reassuring minorities. In these and many other ways, our forces continue to apply their skill and experience to help the people of Kosovo rebuild their communities.
Some people still suggest that we were wrong to have fought the Kosovo campaign. Such a judgment flies in the face of the evidence. British forces made a huge contribution to the success of the NATO operation.

721
Everything we were asked to do, we did. Although it listed a number of problems, many of which we do not accept, the recent Defence Committee report acknowledged
Operation Allied Force can fairly be counted a success.
Mr. David Chidgey rose—
Mr. William Cash rose—
Mr. Hoon: I shall give way in a moment.
There are, of course, lessons to learn. There has never been a campaign anywhere or at any time when that was not the case. Over the past year, with the progress we have made on European defence, the announcements on sea lift and air lift, new secure communications for the Royal Air Force and new precision-guided munitions, we have acted quickly to implement the required reforms.
Dr. Norman A. Godman: My question is on Kosovo, a province that I visited along with other members of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs. How many Ministry of Defence police officers are serving with the international police force? Is it not the case that such police officers can serve a six-month rather than a 12-month tour of duty? Does that not make it more attractive for our officers to serve in Kosovo?
Mr. Hoon: I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me, but I do not have the precise figure to hand. However, I will certainly write to him. Any change that we can make by way of service intervals to make such tours of duty more attractive will be useful.
Our forces have not only been part of international operations in Bosnia and Kosovo; British troops have played a leading part in promoting stability and providing support to the United Nations peacekeeping operation in Sierra Leone. In May, following renewed fighting between Government and rebel forces in Sierra Leone, British armed forces moved at very short notice to secure Lungi airport to allow the evacuation of British nationals and other entitled people, and to enable the United Nations to bring in reinforcements.
Forces from all three services under joint command deployed rapidly to a country halfway across the world, arriving within hours of the final decision to go. At the peak of the mission, more than 5,000 personnel were involved. Having achieved the clear objectives that we set at the outset, we withdrew our combat forces. Conducted in difficult circumstances, the operation was without doubt an unqualified success.
Mr. Chidgey: May I join the Secretary of State in congratulating the performance of our troops in Kosovo and Sierra Leone? I visited Kosovo with the Foreign Affairs Committee, and was delighted to see how well the troops had done, particularly as we were, in the main, first in. The Royal Green Jackets and the Princess of Wales's Royal Regiment, both from my area, performed exceptionally well. However, the underlying concern, now and in the future, is that the troops performed amazingly well, with great credit to this country, but had to overcome many problems in the logistics and lack of preparedness exposed in the Defence Committee's report. I seek an assurance that, in the theatres of the Balkans, and in
722
Sierra Leone where the right anti-malarial tablets were not available, the Secretary of State is taking a personal interest—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I appeal again for short interventions—let us not have mini speeches.
Mr. Hoon: I made it clear that there are lessons to be learned in any campaign. That has always been true in history, and it will be the case in the future. We will respond specifically to the Select Committee report. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we will implement the lessons learned, as we have begun to do already. It is not surprising that there are difficulties—these are difficult and dangerous campaigns. We must study what went wrong, if things went wrong.
Mr. Cash: Will the Secretary of State give way?
Mr. Hoon: I am going to make some progress.
The Government will see through their commitment to Sierra Leone. We are determined to help to turn that country around. We do not want the people of Sierra Leone to be once again subject to rebel brutality. Our most important contribution is undoubtedly our extensive programme to provide the Sierra Leone army with the skills and training that it needs to underpin the authority of the democratically elected Government. This is not a short-term commitment—our original plans for the international training team envisaged a three-year programme.
We have temporarily increased the level of support we have given since June, by providing a series of short-term training teams. We expect, however, to be reducing the number of personnel we have committed to training in Sierra Leone from next spring.
We have also increased our support to the United Nations peacekeeping force. At the UN's request, we now have staff officers working in the UNAMSIL headquarters, and we have reaffirmed our readiness to deploy elements of our rapid reaction force to support UN peacekeeping missions, including Sierra Leone.
In case there were any doubt that we take this commitment seriously, I announced to the House on Monday that, for a limited period, we shall divert an amphibious-ready group, comprising elements of our joint rapid reaction forces, off Sierra Leone. This deployment is a practical demonstration of our rapid reaction capability and our practical support for Sierra Leone.
Our involvement with Sierra Leone has not been without cost. In September, British forces took part in an extraordinarily brave and daring rescue of the Royal Irish Regiment soldiers who had been taken hostage. I am sure that the whole House will join me in paying tribute to the skill, courage and professionalism of the forces involved. In particular, I would like to pay tribute to Bombardier Brad Tinnion, the soldier who died in that operation, and to the others who were injured.
We had exhausted every possible opportunity to resolve the hostage-taking through peaceful means, but when it eventually became clear that that would not be possible, and that the lives of the hostages were at risk, we were right to act. I believe that few, if any, other forces could have achieved what British armed forces did that day. It was a remarkable achievement.

723
Our forces are professionals. They are trained to deal with danger. That is something our that Royal Air Force pilots have confronted routinely over the past year. Our pilots, along with coalition partners, have continued to patrol the northern and southern no-fly zones over Iraq throughout the year in support of UN Security Council Resolution 688. We have been doing this successfully for nearly 10 years, including right through the Kosovo campaign.
Let me be quite clear—these patrols are humanitarian. Saddam Hussein has used helicopter gun ships against the Kurdish population in the north, and both fixed-wing aircraft and helicopter gun ships against the Shia Muslims of the south. There is no reason to believe that he would not do that again if we ceased our efforts.
Since the beginning of last year, there have been more than 235 violations of the no-fly zones by Saddam's forces, and more than 900 other direct threats against our aircrew, including missile attacks and anti-aircraft fire. Saddam has even offered a bounty for shooting down coalition aircraft.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: What my right hon. Friend says about the Shia is nonsense but, apart from that, he mentioned the recent hijacking. Yes, the confrontation with Saddam has gone on for 10 long years, with no result in sight. Would not it have been at least a bit graceful to have entered into some kind of dialogue with the Iraqis, after they had been so quick to give up the hostages?
Mr. Hoon: I am sorry, but I must disagree with my hon. Friend. The reality is that any negotiations along the lines that he suggests would be regarded by Saddam Hussein as a sign of weakness. We would simply be giving in to his appalling behaviour, and that would not advance by a single step the cause of international law, to which I know my hon. Friend is committed.
Our aircrew show great courage and professionalism in the face of the threats. They are authorised to respond in self defence. They do so within the bounds of international law, and attack only those military targets posing a threat to coalition forces. They go to great lengths to avoid civilian casualties.
Saddam has claimed that civilian casualties have been widespread, but on nearly 30 occasions when he says that civilians have been killed, we know that no bombs were actually dropped. Our actions are right and we will continue to maintain our patrols over Iraq for as long as it is necessary to do so.
We also have a destroyer or frigate permanently deployed in the Gulf region. That contributes to the multinational interception force that operates under the auspices of the United Nations Security Council to enforce sanctions against Iraq. At the same time, Britain is playing a leading role in trying to make progress on Security Council resolution 1284. As many right hon. and hon. Members will know, that resolution offers Saddam an opportunity to lead his country away from isolation and a suspension of sanctions in return for progress on the remaining disarmament issues. Saddam has a clear choice between international isolation and a return to the international community.
724
I have described its role in the Gulf, but this year has been an especially busy one for the Royal Navy. At the start of the year, Opposition Members entertained themselves by claiming, quite wrongly, that the Navy was unable to go about its business because we did not have enough money to buy fuel.
Since then, there has been a major, around-the-world deployment of naval forces, which return to Britain later this month. Naval task group 2000 visited over 30 countries, from Vietnam to Venezuela. The Illustrious carrier task group deployed to the Gulf, before diverting to Sierra Leone on its way home. In September, the Invincible carrier task group was involved in a major series of amphibious exercises in the Mediterranean with friends and allies.
When the fleet returns to port at the end of this year, it will not be because it has run out of fuel, but because it deserves a well-earned rest. Where there are equipment problems, we have been putting them right.
Mr. Duncan Smith: The Secretary of State says that we were the only ones who had fun about the fuel issue. It was not fun at all. Will he confirm that the Navy's annual fuel budget was cut by 30 per cent. and then had to be reinstated, which was the cause of the problem that meant that ships could not leave port at Christmas?.
Mr. Hoon: I do not accept that for a moment.
The House will be aware that the United Kingdom hunter-killer nuclear submarine fleet was recalled recently for checks to be made on their reactor systems to determine whether they had the same defect as HMS Tireless. I can now update the House on the present position.
The inspections have shown that there is no evidence of the problem in five submarines. Although four of them were already alongside undergoing repair, maintenance or refit, this means that HMS Triumph, which has the capability to launch Tomahawk missiles, will return to operational duties very shortly.
Analysis of more detailed inspections will allow a recovery programme to be set in place for those submarines that are affected. We aim to have that established by the end of November. In the short term, HMS Triumph's availability means that we are much better placed to conduct operations, including those in support of the deterrent.
I have set out many of the ways in which British forces continue to make an important contribution to preventing conflict and ensuring greater security around the world.
Mr. Quentin Davies: The matter of the submarines is enormously important. The news that the Secretary of State just gave the House is encouraging to some extent, but can we be absolutely clear what the position is? How many submarines have been found to be suffering from the same defect that brought HMS Tireless into port? How many will need extensive repair work? If he does not know the answer to that question now, within what time scale will he be able to inform the House?
Mr. Hoon: There is a programme of inspections. The reason why we were so determined that the inspections should take place as quickly as possible was concern that

725
there was a generic design fault in the construction of the reactor. That appears not to be the case. In five of the boats we have not been able to find that particular problem. One of them will be very shortly available for deployment. We are continuing with more detailed inspections of the remaining vessels and I will certainly bring the House up to date as and when I have more specific information available.
I emphasise that our forces also play a vital role closer to home. Even with progress in the peace process, Northern Ireland remains our single largest operational commitment. While no one should underestimate the difficulties that lie ahead, it would be equally wrong to play down the progress already made towards a peaceful settlement. The political process has enabled us, on advice from the Chief Constable, to bring our force levels down to around 13,500, the lowest figure for almost 30 years. I look forward to the conditions being in place that will allow us to reduce our forces further still, but we are not yet there.
All of the important work that our forces undertake on our behalf depends on one thing—the quality of our people. It is the men and women who make up our forces who deliver time after time. The Government have built and sustained a strong economy. This allows us to invest in Britain's health, education and transport. In addition, because the economy is so strong, we are able to provide more resources for defence: an extra £1.25 billion over the next three years. A strong economy means that we must work even harder to recruit and retain the people we need to make sure that our forces remain the best in the world. This is a huge challenge.
Mr. Cash: Does the Secretary of State agree that intelligence is of great importance to our defence and the security of our forces? Is he aware that serious disquiet is growing in the United States and the Pentagon about the developments in European defence and security policy—the European security and defence identity in particular. Given what he said about the lessons that had to be learned and in view of the leaking of NATO secrets by the French during the Kosovo war, will he give the House an assurance that the military intelligence arrangements with the United States will remain as good as they ever have been in the past 50 years?
Mr. Hoon: I am delighted to be able to give the House that assurance, but I will be dealing in more detail with European defence later in my speech.
The recruitment of sufficient numbers of suitably qualified, strongly motivated young people is fundamental. The armed forces are one of the United Kingdom's leading employers, particularly of young people, with over 25,000 new recruits each year. Recruitment over the past two years has been buoyant. Last year, there was a net inflow to the full-time trained Army for the first time in 15 years. The overall intake for all three services was about 25,533—96 per cent. of our target. For the fourth consecutive year, the number of women recruited into the armed forces was well in excess of 3,000. More people than ever before from the ethnic minorities are joining the armed forces—although we recognise that we must do even more.
Just as recruitment is fundamental, so is retaining the immense talent that we already have. It should not be a surprise that our people—who are among the most
726
motivated and best trained in the country—are attractive to civilian employers, who can often offer a more stable, if less interesting and exciting, life style.
I realise that there are no easy answers, but we are addressing those issues head-on with our policy for people. To select only a few examples, we are tackling overstretch by reducing commitments; we have greatly improved support to deployed personnel and have substantially expanded their allowance packages; we have implemented the armed forces pay review body recommendations in full, on time and unstaged; and we have set up the service families task force, which is already delivering real benefits for families.
My hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces will say more about our wide range of initiatives on retention later in the debate, but it is clear that our policy for people is already helping to make service life a more attractive long-term option for our personnel and their families.
In the longer term, I am absolutely determined that we should do more. However, to establish the armed forces firmly as a career of first choice takes time. It must be based on sustainable policies, not on quick, short-term fixes. However, for the first time we have a highly visible policy for people touching on every aspect of personnel management. That is a major step forward.
Dr. Gavin Strang: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, following the report of the National Audit Office on the training of pilots, the low number of junior fast-jet pilots in April 2000 is an especially important issue and that the problem will increase in each of the next three years? Will he assure the House that every effort is being made to put that right?
Mr. Hoon: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for raising that matter; it is of great concern to us. There is a particular retention problem with pilots, which we continue to address. I am confident that my hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces will cover that matter when he speaks later.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: The Secretary of State is aware that, this year, I am taking part in the armed forces parliamentary scheme. I am delighted to have visited both Canada and Bosnia. My point relates to Bosnia-Herzogovina.
With all the money that the Government have at their disposal, when will they provide troops in Bosnia with living accommodation that meets the standards adopted by all other countries represented in Bosnia? The right hon. Gentleman knows that the Corimex buildings have no air conditioning, and that in summer they are intolerable. After six years of those living conditions, when will they be improved?
Mr. Hoon: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising the question of accommodation. My hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces will refer to it. We are concerned about the fact that we do not provide the standard of accommodation for our armed forces that we should do. The Government are urgently and seriously examining the matter to try to make an improvement.
Mr. Gerald Howarth rose—
Mr. Hancock rose—
Mr. Hoon: I have given way several times and I want to make progress.

727
The armed forces need and deserve the best equipment, so that they can perform to their full potential. We inherited an equipment programme with strengths, but also some serious weaknesses. The shortfalls identified in the strategic defence review—strategic lift, for example—have been apparent in recent operations. We are now putting them right.
Back in May, I announced a £4 billion package to lease four C17s and to acquire 25 A400M transport planes. That will give us a capability that few others can match. Last Thursday, I announced the provision of six new roll on/roll off ferries to provide strategic sealift for our forces, and the procurement of four new logistics ships to support our amphibious and expeditionary capability. Those orders are worth about £1.25 billion, of which more than £1 billion will be spent in the UK. They are a huge boost to our military capability. That is yet another step towards putting in place the flexible, mobile forces proposed by the SDR. It also means jobs for Scotland, for Northern Ireland and for the north-east—jobs for Britain.
I can tell the House that an important decision has been taken with regard to the main engines for the type 45 destroyer. BAE Systems, the prime contractor, ran a competition to select the pair of gas turbines that will power each warship. Excellent bids were received from Rolls-Royce plc, offering the WR21, and from General Electric Company, offering the LM2500. The prime contractor advised us that both engines met the programme requirements, and that either would be acceptable to the Royal Navy. Therefore, it has been a difficult task to decide between the two bids. On balance, we have decided to select the Rolls-Royce WR21.
The LM2500 is a mature product—it is in volume production and available at an attractive price. We accept that the WR21 presents a greater degree of risk to the programme, but we had to look at a range of other factors. Those factors, many of which fall outside the type 45 programme, include the commonality of support arrangements with existing Rolls-Royce engines in the Royal Navy, and particular aspects of Royal Navy fleetwide operations for which the Rolls-Royce engine is well suited.
Because those wider issues have played such a significant part in our decision process, and because our future plans are not sufficiently certain to allow them to be an element of such a competition, we have decided to set aside the competition and negotiate the contract on a sole-source basis with Rolls-Royce.
Hon. Members should welcome the decision as good news for employment in the United Kingdom, particularly in the main Rolls-Royce facilities in Coventry, Bristol and Derby. Overall, some 1,000 jobs will be sustained as a result of our decision. That is clear evidence that this Government are investing in defence and investing in Britain.
The type 45 itself will, of course, be a large, versatile and highly capable ship, and it will provide a huge increase in capability from the outset. It will provide outstanding air defence in support of operations from war fighting to crisis intervention. We still expect to place a contract in excess of £1 billion, for the first three type 45
728
destroyers, before the end of the year, although the precise timing will depend on continuing negotiations involving the prime contractor.
Mr. Paul Keetch: Will the Secretary of State give way?
Mr. Hoon: In a second.
It remains our intention that the first and third ships will be assembled by BAE Systems Marine and the second ship by Vosper Thornycroft. Involving two shipbuilders in the design of the ship will make for effective competition for follow-on ships and reinforces the importance that this Government attach to a strong and competitive warship-building industry in this country. The detailed level of work share between the two yards remains to be decided, but must enable effective downstream competition and provide value for money to the British taxpayer.
Mr. Keetch: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way and for remembering Hereford. On the type 45, the Sylver launcher has been selected as the launcher for the principal anti-air-missile system for the lead ship of the class, but we understand that it can launch the PAAMS missile only. Given the problems that we have had with submarines, would it not be advisable for type 45s to be able to launch, for example, cruise missiles? Will the Secretary of State therefore give the House an assurance that the launcher for the subsequent ships will be capable of launching a type of missile other than PAAMS?
Mr. Hoon: Those are matters that we can review as the programme is developed, but I am absolutely confident that the armaments capability of these very impressive ships will be perfectly sufficient as and when they come into service.
Mr. Chidgey rose—
Mr. Hancock rose—
Mr. Hoon: I need to make more progress.
The warship is being designed for the future, so it will be capable of incorporating up-to-date technology. While land attack missiles are not currently planned for the type 45, the ship is designed from the outset to allow the fitting of a vertical launcher suitable for a variety of weapons, including Tomahawk. The ship will have sufficient space and facilities to allow its capability to grow through its life. The type 45 will be a world-class ship for a world-class Navy and its success will depend on the world-class design and manufacturing skills of British industry.
Mr. Hancock: Will the Secretary of State give way? It is important for jobs.
Hon. Members: His job.
Mr. Hoon: I am all in favour of preserving jobs. I will certainly give way.
Mr. Hancock: I am delighted that the Secretary of State gave way. On the question of the second type 45,

729
he is no doubt aware that it is vital to Vospers and to the work force currently at Woolston and the work force to be transferred to Portsmouth. There is a significant problem as the prime contractor is yet to sign and to make a reasonable arrangement with Vospers about the way in which that contract will operate. Will the Secretary of State do all that he can to bring about a decision and to get that contract signed as quickly as possible, so that we can secure those 650 jobs that are currently at risk at Vospers in Woolston and secure the move to Portsmouth as quickly as possible?
Mr. Hoon: Obviously, it is in the Government's interest to have this matter resolved as quickly as possible—that will get the ships in service as quickly as possible. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we are making every effort to ensure that the negotiations do not go on for too much longer and that we achieve the result that he and I want to secure for the Royal Navy.
Mr. Chidgey: Will the Secretary of State ensure that, as originally intended, the share of the work between Vosper Thornycroft and BAE Systems Marine will be fair and equal?
Mr. Hoon: That is what we announced and that is what we are seeking to achieve.
This world-beating new equipment is part of the success story that is Britain's defence. We must make sure that our forces, which are the very best, remain so. That involves the modernisation of our forces, which we are achieving in every aspect of what we do, from the organisation of Europe's defence to the command and control of our helicopter and Harrier forces. It all has one aim—to maximise and improve military capability.
I am, therefore, also pleased to announce that the invitation to tender for the new competition for the Bowman communications system will be issued today, which is four weeks earlier than planned. After a rigorous examination of industrial proposals, we will invite bids for the supply and initial support of Bowman from three companies: Computing Devices Canada, TRW and Thomson Racal Defence Ltd. All bidders are expected to offer proposals with significant manufacturing work and vehicle conversion in the United Kingdom. That represents a major turnaround for Bowman. The fact that we have been able quickly to issue the invitation to tender to major companies with good track records in this sector is a clear vindication of our early decision to reopen that competition.
Our programme of equipment improvements has its roots in the strategic defence review. That demonstrates that the SDR is on track. Two years on from the completion of the review, we continue to make excellent progress. Let me mention a few highlights. Elements from the joint rapid reaction forces have already seen action in East Timor and Sierra Leone. Those JRRF provide a pool of forces typically comprising around 20 major warships, 22 other vessels, four brigades, 110 combat aircraft and 160 other aircraft, any of which can be drawn on as situations and circumstances require. They can be deployed quickly around the world and they can deliver a real punch when they arrive.
Joint force Harrier brings together all our Harrier aircraft into a single potent capability. It has already proved its worth in Sierra Leone. We have created a single
730
logistics organisation under a chief of defence logistics who is charged with streamlining and improving support to the front line. We are sustaining and broadening the success of the smart procurement initiative under what we now call smart acquisition. With smart acquisition, we are reducing the acquisition cost of defence equipment by £2 billion over the next 10-year period from 1998 to 2008, just as we said we should do in the SDR.
I give just one of the many examples of the success of smart acquisition. On the Seawolf surface-to-air missile programme, we aim to produce a common basic missile to re-arm the different systems on type 22 and type 23 frigates. By tightly writing the contract to include incentive payments for early delivery plus profit and risk sharing arrangements, we expect to reduce projected costs by up to 50 per cent.
The SDR is a long-term programme. The last SDR decision will not take effect until the Tornado GR4 is phased out as planned in 2020. Already, however, almost half of the key SDR measures have been implemented, although we have at the same time been engaged in crises in the Gulf, Kosovo, East Timor and Sierra Leone. That is a considerable achievement.
Mr. John Bercow: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way. He referred to the Defence Logistics Organisation. Given that a National Audit Office report found that stocks of laser-guided bombs ran critically low during the Kosovo crisis, that morphine supplies were mismanaged and that tent accommodation was inadequate, will the right hon. Gentleman tell us what targets for improved services have been set for the Defence Logistics Organisation, and within what time scale does he expect those targets to be achieved?
Mr. Hoon: The hon. Gentleman's question mixes several issues. I stress that we have set in train a significant reform of logistics. I outlined in general terms what that involves—it will bring about a massive shake-up in the supply of logistics. We anticipate that there will be a 20 per cent. saving—that is already on track and is being achieved. My hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces said that that effort has—rightly—been supported by those on the Opposition Front Bench. That practical reform will save money and deliver equipment more efficiently to our armed forces.
I should like to come now to the question of money and what the outcome of spending review 2000 means for defence. In July, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced the first planned, sustained, real-terms increase in the defence budget since the mid-1980s. The defence budget will rise from about £23 billion this year to almost £25 billion by 2003–04. We will see £1.25 billion of new money for defence—after inflation—in a guaranteed three-year deal.
The spending review 2000 settlement is a hugely significant development. After years of successive cuts in defence spending under the Conservatives, we have announced the first real-terms, year-on-year increase in defence spending since the end of the cold war. Such sustained growth in the defence budget represents real investment by this Government in the continued quality and effectiveness of our armed forces.
The Conservative party has so far failed to promise to match such investment. Indeed, we have had no signs of any Opposition spending plans. There has been a great deal

731
of talk from the hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith), but no commitment to match our investment in Britain's armed forces.
Mr. Duncan Smith rose—
Mr. Hoon: If the hon. Gentleman is going to say that the Conservatives will match our investment in the armed forces, I will be delighted to give way to him.
Mr. Duncan Smith: I want to correct a couple of small points. The first is that the Secretary of State said that Labour is making the first sustained, real-terms increase. That is not true. In 1997, there was a sustained, real-terms increase. Secondly, he inherited a budget of 2.7 per cent. of gross domestic product. Under the strategic defence review, the Government reduced the budget by £1.4 billion, so it fell to about 2.3 per cent. of GDP. Therefore, the Secretary of State needed the cash injection to stabilise spending following the cut that he originally implemented.
Mr. Hoon: I did not notice the hon. Gentleman make any commitment to sustain the investment. He is playing with statistics. I am talking about real, new money after a long period during which the Government whom he supported and of whom, indeed, several current Conservative Members were part, cut defence spending. I warn the hon. Gentleman that if he is not able to commit the money, he should spend a little less time telling us what we are supposed to do to defend Britain, and more time defending his shadow Budget from his shadow Chancellor when it is made to bear the brunt of Tory spending cuts. The hon. Gentleman would be better off concentrating on the enemies behind him rather than the opponents opposite him.
I should now like to deal with issues relating to NATO, European defence and multinational defence co-operation. Although the Kosovo campaign was entirely successful in meeting all our political and military objectives, we had to rely disproportionately on the Americans for the military might that underpinned it. We cannot and should not always expect to do so for crises on Europe's doorstep. That is why we have been at the forefront of efforts to adapt and modernise Europe's defence capabilities in the same way that we have modernised our own. That was a key part of the discussion at the NATO informal ministerial meeting in Birmingham last month. I should like to report to the House on what came out of that, and on the work that we are doing to build up Europe's responsibilities in the field of security and defence. The subject is frequently misunderstood, and I suspect even occasionally deliberately misrepresented. I therefore welcome this opportunity to put the record straight.
The essential purpose of the changes that we are making to Europe's defence architecture is to strengthen the ability of European nations to act in pursuit of their foreign and security policy objectives. That means two things. First, we want to strengthen Europe's military capabilities, so that we can both make a better and more coherent contribution to NATO and give credibility to European military options in which NATO as a whole is
732
not engaged. Secondly, we want to give the European Union the capacity to take military decisions and to take political control of crisis-management operations.
None of that means weakening NATO. Let me be absolutely clear that we are not building a competitor to NATO. Nor are we prepared to take any action that might damage or undermine the alliance. We are tying future European crisis management firmly to the framework of the NATO alliance. There is no disagreement among allies about that. NATO is and will remain the cornerstone of our security and defence policy. For any realistic large-scale military operation, NATO is the first and only option. NATO will remain the sole organisation for collective defence in Europe, and NATO will be the organisation to which we expect to turn for significant crisis-management operations—certainly when Europeans and north Americans intend to act together.
Dr. Julian Lewis: What I am about to say will not come as a surprise to the Secretary of State because he has heard it from me before. Will he explain to the House how he can guarantee that a crisis that does not involve the Americans will not escalate out of control in a way that would not have happened if the Americans and NATO had been involved from the beginning? It is that unpredictability that is so dangerous.
Mr. Hoon: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman does not understand how international crises are handled. If he did, he would know that they are not managed in isolation by any one country or group of countries; there is a close understanding between all allies involved regarding the appropriate response to a crisis. Even if the circumstances he describes were to start to emerge, the Americans would have been closely involved throughout the crisis in determining the appropriate nature of the international community's response.
Mr. Keetch: As one west midlands Member of Parliament to another, may I ask whether the Secretary of State remembers the informal meeting of NATO Defence Ministers in Birmingham on 10 October? When United States Defence Secretary William Cohen said that it is
right and natural that an increasingly integrated Europe seeks to develop its own security and defence policy with a military capability to back it up
did he not make it clear that the United States has no concerns about the policy that the Government are pursuing?
Mr. Hoon: I shall deal with that point soon. I was a little surprised—as, no doubt, my constituents will be—to discover that we have been removed to the west midlands. However, I realise that the Liberal Democrats are a little loose about geography, as they are about so many issues.
The headline goal agreed by EU member states at the Helsinki European Council in December 1999 is designed to deliver more effective European forces. EU leaders agreed that, by 2003, they should be able to deploy rapidly and then to sustain for at least a year military forces that are capable of undertaking the most demanding crisis management tasks up to corps level—some 60,000 strong. That level of force will be available either as a contribution to a NATO operation or for an EU-led operation.

733
We have spent some months since Helsinki developing a detailed statement of requirement of the pool of forces and capabilities that it implies—the headline catalogue. Later this month, EU member states will hold a capability commitment conference at which we will publicly set out our contributions to the catalogue. Member states will also make commitments to remedy remaining qualitative and quantitative shortfalls, and to establish a review mechanism to ensure that progress in addressing those shortfalls is monitored. That will give us a programme and a timetable for meeting the headline goal.
All that does not mean a standing reaction force. It certainly does not mean a European army. It requires the identification of a pool of capability from which forces can be assembled on a case-by-case basis for specific operations, followed by the progressive modernisation of European armed forces, so that they are more deployable, more readily available and more sustainable. Everyone—both NATO and Europe—stands to benefit.
The Conservatives are always eager to tell us what the Americans are reported to think about European defence. In their hatred of all things European, they look to the Americans to bail them out, so let me tell the House—yet again—what the Americans really think. Speaking in Birmingham about the headline goal, US Defence Secretary William Cohen said:
Let me be clear on America's position. We agree with this goal—not grudgingly, not with resignation, but with whole-hearted conviction.
Mr. Menzies Campbell: Will the right hon. Gentleman provide an assessment of the Government's attitude to the suggestion that NATO should have a right of first refusal in any circumstances in which European forces might be deployed in the sort of roles that he has described? It strikes me that that could be an important part of ensuring that the United States was never excluded from decision making and it would also deal with those members of NATO that are outside the European Union.
Mr. Hoon: We are working to achieve coherence between NATO planning processes and the emerging EU planning processes. I do not entirely accept that a formal right of first refusal would be appropriate, because of the way in which a crisis can develop internationally. A crisis might begin as a relatively small-scale problem that was initially the responsibility of the EU because NATO had judged that it was more a matter for European nations to deal with than for NATO. Therefore, a formal right of first refusal might not necessarily achieve the policy objective that I assume the right hon. and learned Gentleman wants. However, it might be achieved by ensuring absolute consistency between the planning processes of both NATO and the EU, an absence of duplication between the two, and real consistency in the international community's response. That is precisely what the Government are seeking to achieve and for which we have achieved widespread support, both within NATO and the European Union.
I think that Opposition Members have forgotten about what underlies this policy area. The Americans understand that we are strengthening NATO; we are not weakening it by strengthening the European contribution. For years—arguably for decades—our US allies have been calling for Europe to get its act together. That is precisely what we are doing. In Birmingham, we
734
discussed the change in direction needed by the alliance, from a large, immobile defensive force intended to confront a massive attack on Europe—NATO's primary function for more than 40 years—to one capable of deploying quickly and effectively for crisis management and peace support operations.
We discussed the defence capabilities initiative, the alliance's programme to improve the capability of its forces in key areas such as air-to-air refuelling and strategic air lift. This will enhance the ability of European states to deploy their armed forces as part of coalition operations and ensure greater interoperability with US forces.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: During the NATO discussions at Birmingham, what discussion took place about the United State's proposal for national missile defence? Did most European countries say that they were opposed to such defence and would not co-operate with it? Did the British Government give a private opinion to the US that they would be prepared to co-operate if a request were made?
Mr. Hoon: There was little discussion of national missile defence at Birmingham, not least because by then the United States had indicated its intention of deferring a decision. As I said to my hon. Friend during Defence questions only the other day, the US having decided to defer the decision, it would be purely speculative for him to suggest that the UK had made any commitment in one direction or another. Unless and until a request is received, he is merely speculating.
We strongly support the departmental central index—
Dr. Godman: I am delighted that Europe is getting its security act together—I think that those were my right hon. Friend's words. Can he assure the House that the Governments of Finland, Sweden and the Irish Republic have the same enthusiasm towards the concept of a rapid response force?
Mr. Hoon: I can give that reassurance. Those countries welcome the opportunity that the headline goal affords to participate in the effective forces that that goal presupposes. Smaller countries clearly are not in a position necessarily to have the full range of forces that are available, for example, to the UK Government. However, they can play a significant part in building up those forces. Finland and other Scandinavian countries are planning a Scandinavian brigade, which will contribute to the rapid reaction force that is envisaged in the headline catalogue. That will allow them to play a part which otherwise would not be available to them. Significant opportunities are afforded to the countries that my hon. Friend has mentioned.
We strongly support the DCI. It is modernising NATO in the same way that we have adapted our own forces following the strategic defence review. We will no longer be waiting for a threat that is most unlikely to arrive. Instead, we will have the capability to deploy and to deal with threats as and when they occur.
Our involvement in future operations of any scale in and around Europe will almost inevitably be as part of a coalition. This emphasises the importance of forging closer links with those countries that we may find

735
ourselves operating alongside in a crisis. These are countries within NATO and like-minded countries elsewhere, such as Sweden and Australia. The benefits of that sort of multinational defence co-operation are obvious. We cannot hope to obtain the very best in military equipment and capability by going it alone. Modern defence equipment programmes are very expensive and require a phenomenal technological input.
Eurofighter, for example, will be the world's finest fighter aircraft. It is the result of the combined efforts of four nations. As a result, we will get it at a lower price and with more advanced technology than if we had tried to go it alone. There will be huge operational benefits from four NATO nations using the same aircraft, many of the same weapons and much of the same ground equipment. If the UK went alone down that path, Eurofighter would cost much more and would be much less capable.
There are many other examples of effective multinational equipment co-operation. The Storm Shadow air-launched cruise missile is Anglo-French. New armoured vehicles are being designed and will be produced in collaboration with Germany. We are talking to the Australians about our future strategic tanker requirement. There are exciting projects that will bring the countries of NATO, Europe and our friends and allies further afield closer together.
It is not just in procurement that benefits are to be had from working more closely together; there are real operational advantages, too. The UK-Netherlands amphibious force brings together the excellence of our Royal Marines and the Dutch Marines. They have similar equipment, use the same tactics and deploy from the same sort of ships. They work together in peace, and can deploy together in a crisis.
The allied Rapid Reaction Corps, which the UK heads, distinguished itself in Kosovo. In addition, there is the possible twinning—not joining—of German, Italian and RAF Tornados in the suppression of enemy air defences, utilising the best of each country's capability to improve the end product. The key point about multinational defence co-operation is that it improves operational capability and, where that is the case, we will do more of it.
Over the past 12 months, Britain's armed forces have once again made us proud. They have done everything we have asked of them and more, often in dangerous and difficult circumstances, in Bosnia, Kosovo, Northern Ireland, the Gulf and Sierra Leone.
The Government are serious about defence—we are serious about investing in defence; we are serious about looking after the people who provide our defence; and we are serious about ensuring that structures are in place, both in Europe and at home, to deliver the defence that the nation needs. We are doing all of that not with words but with actions, and we are already seeing the benefits. We are not modernising Britain's defence for the sake of it: we are doing it to ensure that Britain's forces, which are the best, remain the best. We are the only party prepared to commit the investment necessary to get the job done.
4.46 pm
Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: I join the Secretary of State in paying tribute to our armed forces. He is right to be proud of all that they
736
have achieved. I also associate myself and all members of my party with the condolences that he gave to the family of Brad Tinnion and to others who were wounded. Although Brad Tinnion was the only person who, sadly, lost his life, others received wounds in what was a brilliant operation. We have come to expect our armed forces to deliver, but when they do it still sometimes takes our breath away. We are justifiably proud of them, and I therefore associate my party with the right hon. Gentleman's comments about them and their actions.
In future, would it not be a good idea to have these debates on a substantive motion rather than as an Adjournment debate? I understand that that is a little difficult without a White Paper, but perhaps it would be possible to find a mechanism—such as Select Committee reports—by which we can create a substantive motion and thus involve other hon. Members in shaping the debate. That is solely an observation, but I hope that the Secretary of State will relay it to his colleagues who sit further down the Treasury Bench—not that they are officially present at the moment.
The right hon. Gentleman is right to talk about the activities in which our armed forces have been involved. I shall follow his lead and quickly refer to them. Forces in Bosnia and Kosovo whom my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) and I visited have operated in extremely difficult circumstances. They have had to spend long periods away from their friends and families, often on tour for six or seven months before going back home for a briefer period than that. They have then had to turn around and go back, if not to the same location, to areas close by. When we were in the region towards the end of last year, soldiers said to my hon. Friend and me that they would like to spend more time with their families and have more opportunity to train. I simply present those comments to the Secretary of State as key objectives—to give service people more time with their families and more time to train lest they lose those skills.
We are justifiably proud of what our forces have done. Recent events in Kosovo and Serbia are testimony to their hard work. We do not know how the situation in Serbia will develop—things still hang in the balance—but our forces can be proud of the part that they have played. The right hon. Gentleman was right to praise them.
The right hon. Gentleman was also right to say that the war in Iraq is in many ways the forgotten war. RAF pilots fly daily sorties. When my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) visited the forces there, he realised that they are almost completely forgotten by our national papers. That is not a criticism, merely an observation. Those pilots risk their lives daily, but we have got used to that idea and forgotten them. On behalf of the Opposition, I pay tribute to what our pilots have been doing. They are doing their duty and doing it excellently, and the Secretary of State is right to draw attention to that. It should no longer be the forgotten war.
The Secretary of State is also right to speak about the importance of the job that our soldiers and other service men carry out in Northern Ireland. It is easy to assume, as many hon. Members may, that there is no longer a need for members of the armed forces to be out in Northern Ireland, and that everything is settled. Only today on the news we heard that there have been both a bomb and a shooting there, which brings us quickly to the conclusion that, whatever else is going on, it is not the case that there is no need for our troops.

737
The Secretary of State is right to say that he must be cautious when people suggest that we should withdraw more troops from Northern Ireland. I urge him to be cautious about the numbers that he withdraws, and to be certain that he will not have to send them back in two or three months' time, in a slightly more unprepared state.
I spoke earlier today about the possibility of setting up a memorial to those who lost their lives in the service of the Crown as a result of the troubles in Northern Ireland. I thank the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister for welcoming the suggestion and speaking about seeing it through. I hope that something can be done. The House owes a debt of gratitude to a special group of people—not just the service men and the Royal Ulster Constabulary, but many others, and not just in Northern Ireland—who, as a result of the troubles, made the ultimate sacrifice. It would be good for us to have a place to go and say thank you, rather than remembering just wars and major campaigns.
The Secretary of State spoke about Sierra Leone. He knows that in the earlier operations we supported the Government in their objectives, but I remain concerned about the way in which matters are developing and about the conditions out there. The Secretary of State referred in the House on Monday to extra force deployments—temporary, as he pointed out today—about which I want to ask him some questions, so that we can judge whether there is a threat of our being sucked into Sierra Leone without any clear objective.
Perhaps the Secretary of State, or the Minister for the Armed Forces when he winds up, could explain what conditions will have to prevail in Sierra Leone before British troops are withdrawn—I know that time scales are difficult—and what lies behind the appointment of the brigadier who has gone as chief of staff to the United Nations commander. To what extent is that a change in policy with regard to our connection and involvement with the UN? Does it portend that there is a possibility that we will end up joining the UN force, or is that ruled out? I share the reservations and deep concern of the Ministry of Defence about Britain becoming a full member of the UN force, as that would restrict our options. I understand that the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell), who speaks for the Liberal Democrats, does not share that view, but the House would be grateful if the Minister explained the Government's thinking.
What will be the role of the task force? Once it goes out to Sierra Leone, it will carry out what the Secretary of State called an exercise or demonstration. If that is the purpose, how long is it anticipated that the force will be there, and what will happen to it once the exercise is finished? Will it be withdrawn, left there or moved somewhere else so that it can react speedily? Perhaps the Minister can answer that now or when he winds up.
The Secretary of State spoke about the international training team and our long-term commitment to it. Earlier in the year, when we visited the British training force, it was clear to me—and I expect to others—that our team would be there for only a brief period, and that the international training team would slowly start to take over in the autumn, so there would be no need for a separate British training team.
Perhaps the Minister could explain what has happened to the time scale for the international training team. Does he claim that there will not be enough people to carry out
738
the training—we were assured that there would be enough people—or is it simply a case of not being able to rustle up the people to do the job? We have received no explanation.
I understood that the most of the British forces who were training would be withdrawn after providing a short sharp start to the training process, but the plan has been extended to next year. What commitments have been made beyond that? If there are such commitments, why have they been made? What has happened to the international training team? My hon. Friends and I would be grateful for some explanation of what is happening in Sierra Leone, and I hope that the Minister, who will wind up and possibly open the second half of the debate tomorrow, will provide it.
We have already taken up a reasonable amount of time, and the Secretary of State gave way on a wide range of subjects. I shall not refer to every subject that the right hon. Gentleman covered because there will be time tomorrow to deal with many of those topics. The Minister will probably mention some of them. I shall concentrate on the European security and defence identity and the development of the European defence programme.
In the next two to three weeks, with the approaching force generation conference, it would be reasonable to try to ascertain the way in which we have arrived at our current position and its implications not only for Europe but for the United States and others. One tends to forget the Canadians, who are very much a part of the process.
For me, it is not a matter of debate that the nations of Europe should be able to do more, have a greater capability, and be more efficient in military terms. As partners in NATO, they owe it to their big partner, the United States. They also owe it to themselves because, for too long, they have assumed that someone else will act for them.
Mr. Frank Cook: Does the shadow Secretary of State acknowledge that the comments that he and Baroness Thatcher made in Washington DC did nothing to reflect the views that he has just enunciated, and that they caused untold consternation among Congressmen and Senators on the Hill? If he had consulted people such as Congressman Biereuter from Nebraska or the late Herb Bateman, he would have learned a little more about the position than he conveyed to their colleagues. Does he accept that he caused much of the trouble that has been settled by the quotation that the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Keetch) cited earlier?
Mr. Duncan Smith: I am pleased to know that people I meet on visits even listen to my words, let alone act on them. It gives me great pleasure to hear that my words had an effect in Washington; I meant them to have an effect. I am sure that the hon. Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) was sincere in his comments. However, I made it clear at the beginning of my remarks in Washington, as I have done today, that capability is critical, but that the method of achieving it is also critical. The key to that is not breaking the alliance. I shall go through that later. However, I did not say anything to the contrary. I pointed out in the evidence that I gave in Washington that I believe that we are engaged in an exercise that will lead to the worst, not the best results. I shall deal with the reasons for that later.

739
I have no responsibility for what Lady Thatcher says. If the hon. Member for Stockton, North wants to make some comments to her, he is more than welcome to do so, but I shall not follow him down that road; it is not something that I would necessarily do with ease.
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mr. John Spellar): She would hit him on the head with a handbag.
Mr. Duncan Smith: If the Minister would like to claim responsibility for the comments of his predecessors who happened to be Prime Minister, he is welcome to do it. If he wants to claim responsibility for Lady Thatcher's, that is fine. I agree with much of what Lady Thatcher says, but I do not claim that she owes me any apologies or foreknowledge of her remarks. What she says is rightly her business, and we agree with that with which we agree. I am speaking for the Opposition, who will be in government next year. [Interruption.] I cannot keep a straight face because the way in which the Government smile about their demise always gives me great pleasure.
Under the Conservative Government, the European security and defence identity was being developed within NATO, not in competition with it. The Western European Union was being developed as the forum for the expression of European defence interests within NATO, and was formally recognised as such at that time by the European Union. That policy was clearly inherited by the Labour Government when they took power.
In Amsterdam in June 1997, the Prime Minister's spin doctors proudly trumpeted the fact that he had won the "battle" against moves to merge the WEU and the EU. In fact—this is most interesting—when the Prime Minister came back from Amsterdam, he said—[Interruption.] I should like the Secretary of State to listen to this. He may wish to know what the Prime Minister actually said. He said:
getting Europe's voice heard more clearly in the world will not be achieved through merging the European Union and the Western European Union or developing an unrealistic common defence policy.—[Official Report, 18 June 1997; Vol. 296, c. 314.]
I thought that, after Amsterdam, the Prime Minister, at least, was clear. He went on to say that Europe's defence should remain a matter for NATO, not the EU. He described plans for a merger between the WEU and the EU, which now appear to be under way, as
like an ill-judged transplant operation.
The Guardian—which is always close to Labour, although it sometimes does not like to say so—reported at the time:
Mr. Blair feared it would undermine US commitment to Europe.
Whatever else the Secretary of State thinks the Prime Minister said, I think it is clear from the record what he thought of the proposals. When he was questioned after Amsterdam, I asked him whether he agreed that because he had conceded the principle that defence was in the treaty, others would have an opportunity to build a common defence. He replied:
No…We are under no obligation…to merge the EU and WEU.—[Official Report, 18 June 1997; Vol. 296, c. 322.]
Suppose that someone who has been locked away in a Big Brother-style house for the past three and a half years—like many Labour Back Benchers—is suddenly
740
voted out, as I hope Labour will be next year. It would be fair for that person to assume—given the Prime Minister's strong language after Amsterdam—that the Government's policy had continued along those lines. That is straightforward; it would seem reasonable. But this is the Prime Minister who wrote in The Sun, before the last election, of his great love for the pound, and his strong belief that it was superb. He seems to have fallen out of love with it in double-quick time, so perhaps the person from the Big Brother house would be expecting too much. But he—this character who has been locked away in Big Brother's room—would find that there was a full-blown proposal for an EU force of some 60,000 men on deployment, with a pool back-up of some 200,000 men nominated to sustain it. He would see a raft of EU-based military structures, and a high representative for defence based in Brussels. He would note with some surprise, given the "transplant" comments, that the WEU was to be merged with the EU. He would hear proposals for joint European intelligence facilities. He would read about Mr. Prodi and other politicians who now talk boldly about the creation of a European army.
As the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife said earlier, what that person would not see is any way in which NATO would have a right of refusal, because the Government have handed power to block the decision to the French, who have duly done so. He would see all those aspects of the process being dealt with outside NATO—separated from the NATO alliance. Most surprising of all, however, would be the discovery that all this had been initiated and led by the Prime Minister—the very man who had described such potential developments as an ill-judged transplant operation which he had rejected.
Mr. Hoon: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, as he is dwelling on matters of historical record. He and I arrived in the House at about the same time and spent many of our early months here debating European matters. Does he recall that, throughout that period, he was a consistent rebel, opposing the then Conservative Government's policy on Europe? Is it a change in his party's policy on Europe that allows him to sit on the Opposition Front Bench, representing the senior reaches of the Conservative party, or has he changed his views on opposing the European Union?
Mr. Duncan Smith: What a remarkably difficult question. The Conservative party is following commonsense policies on Europe. My party is clear and open about the fact that this Government were elected on the basis of one set of beliefs but immediately changed it for another set. That is exactly what the Prime Minister has done, as evidenced by what I have quoted. Although the Secretary of State has strong beliefs on such matters, he did not write any articles saying how much he loved the pound—clearly, he does not. However, the Prime Minister spent his time doing so and telling us that these arrangements would not work, yet he has now not only agreed to them, but charged and lead the damn things. The Prime Minister is clear and honest in that he never seems to hold an opinion for a day longer than he has to.
Why has all this happened? There is no question but that a U-turn has taken place, but at least it has done so rhetorically. Why did the Prime Minister do it? Did he no longer believe in what he was saying in 1997? Had he

741
seen the light? Or did he believe that he had pulled the wool over the British public's eyes for long enough to get away with it? Perhaps it is more relevant that he felt that he was being sidelined in Europe just as the EU was about to embark on the single currency and he needed to find some powerful friends to ensure that he was not left out in the cold, and defence was the big-ticket item that he could use in the corridors of power.
At St. Malo, the Prime Minister clearly laid the foundations for the change in policy. The agreement sealed the initiative that the EU will need recourse to
multinational military means inside or outside the NATO framework.
It stated:
The Union must have the capacity for autonomous action, backed by credible military forces…
and
the EU will need to have recourse to suitable military means…
During NATO's 50th anniversary, the French saw a door that opened on to their concerns and dislike of what NATO had previously represented. They saw a chance to change the defence posture of Europe and the British. But even the French were taken aback by the speed of the process that the Prime Minister had initiated. On 20 January 2000, Pierre Moscovici, the French Minister for European Affairs, told L'Express:
Europe is forging ahead—faster and further than people realise.
The Washington conference, which is often claimed to show what America believes about the process, could have dealt with such matters, but it did not. It became a case of smoke and mirrors—a way in which to deceive the participants into believing that there was nothing to worry about. Undertakings were given but never met. Obligations were talked about but not proceeded with. The debate on European defence was washed over and postponed because of the Kosovo crisis, which occurred in the midst of that conference. The cracks that were appearing had to be papered over for the sake of alliance unity and, therefore, a form of words was agreed that many in Europe thought would keep the Americans sweet. European Governments made it their clear project to manoeuvre around the potential road block represented by the Washington conference and to be careful to keep sight of what was now their clear objective.
Since then, the Government have spun the myth that their new policy was endorsed at Washington in 1999. However, what was endorsed at Washington is not what we have today. The concept conceived at Washington imitated a combined joint task force approach using NATO command structures, operating within NATO, and open to all NATO members, including the United States. The alliance reiterated its readiness to
make collective assets available…Develop separable but not separate multinational capabilities, assets and support assets; separable but not separate HQs…
That was the dream at Washington, but it has remained only that. In reality, Washington plays no part at all in the new policy.
Under the ESDP, we have developed, or are developing, many separate multinational capabilities outside the alliance. We see the setting up of separate capabilities for intelligence gathering, heavy lift by sea and air, logistics support and communications. Under the same policy, we
742
have developed separate independent headquarters with separate European command arrangements, all outside NATO.
Mr. Brazier: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way in the middle of the compelling case that he is making. Perhaps a significant item to add to his list is an extraordinary piece of geography: Mr. Solana is located in the EU building, not the NATO building, in the city of Brussels. [Interruption.]
Mr. Duncan Smith: All I can say, echoing the words from a sedentary position of the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife, who speaks for the Liberal Democrats, is that that is exactly where Mr. Solana is meant to be. Hon. Members guffaw, but my hon. Friend is right. That is exactly the point. That is where Mr. Solana's responsibility and reporting lines are. He is there to report back to the EU, so my hon. Friend is right to make the point. There is no involvement for Mr. Solana with NATO.
Let me come to the last point about the Washington summit, which is vital. As I have said, it warned against the development of a programme that was not "open to all members". Non-EU NATO members such as Turkey, Hungary, Poland, Norway and even Denmark—which, the Secretary of State may remember, opted out of the process at Maastricht—have been left out, while the EU embraces neutral states into the process.
The point was made earlier. Many of those nations, if not all of them—certainly Turkey—are very angry because, having been willing and strong participants in NATO, and believing themselves for the most part to be nations in Europe, they find themselves—for no other reason than that they are out of the EU—excluded from a process that is supposed to be part of NATO. They are outside. We have some inside that have never shown capability within NATO, and forces and structures separate from NATO are being developed.
The train was kick-started at St. Malo. It has gone on, detouring at Washington, and stopping at Cologne and Helsinki. If where we now say we are is not where the Prime Minister wanted us to be originally—he changed his mind—what was the purpose of the exercise in the first place? The Government always say that this was simply about delivering the Petersberg tasks more efficiently, but the more we look at the structure and capability under the process, and at the separateness of it, the more clear it becomes that the forces under the headline goal of the ESDP are not just intended for the Petersberg tasks, which after all fall for the most part at the low-intensity end of the conflict spectrum.
Originally, the so-called Petersberg tasks were defined as being within NATO and WEU led. The prime example of that was operation Alba in Albania, where some 7,000 European troops were mobilised.
Interestingly, the previous Government's view of Petersberg was made clear by my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Sir A. Hamilton), then Minister of State for the Armed Forces who said in a written answer:
The development of WEU as a means to strengthen the European pillar of the Atlantic alliance will be based on the principle of complementarity between the facilities and activities of NATO and WEU, so duplication should be avoided.

743
He went On:
WEU would have no permanent forces or headquarters ultimately of its own.—[Official Report, 17 May 1993; Vol. 225, c. 80–81W.]
It was the intention of the previous Government that that should act as a structure to deliver Petersberg, but that is not now the case.
Let us look at what the French have been saying about the Petersberg tasks. The French Defence Minister, Main Richard, speaking to the General Affairs Council on 15 November, said:
We could increase the strength of deployable forces. The land component should allow us to deal with two simultaneous crises, including the high intensity one with a long term requirement for forces. The ability at sea and air lift components to project forces and carry out deep strikes would be significantly increased. Here we could envisage supplementing by 6 to 7 brigades and 600 to 700 aircraft including 400 to 450 combat aircraft.
All that envisaged to deliver peacekeeping tasks under Petersberg? It beggars belief.
In May, the Secretary of State helpfully explained the Government's position:
at the Helsinki European Council last December, all EU leaders committed themselves to meeting a challenging target for collective capability.
As usual, the Secretary of State's seemingly level-headed rhetoric is not matched by the views and opinions of politicians across the channel, even discounting the usual talk about Mr. Prodi. I shall not go into the usual quotes about Mr. Prodi's calls.
Mr. Andrew Robathan: Go on.
Mr. Duncan Smith: No, I shall not do that, as we have all heard enough about Mr. Prodi's calls to know what they are. However, it is worth having a look at a few other people in France in relation to defence policy. The French Prime Minister, Lionel Jospin, talked about taking
a decisive step towards building a political Europe.
The French European Affairs Minister, Pierre Moscovici, said of defence policy:
We don't agree with the Americanization of the world…We are saying that together we can build a new superpower…and its name will be Europe.
President Chirac said:
developing a European Union foreign defence policy is a fundamentally political project…if it does not happen, the very life force of our continent will ebb away.
In case right hon. and hon. Members thought that such super-power dreaming was confined to the French, the German Minister of Foreign Affairs, Joschka Fischer, said in a speech to the Bundestag on 10 December that the development of the European security and defence identity was
another pillar in the process of European unification.
Such views are held not just in Germany and France but a little closer to home. The Prime Minister started to use the same language when he went to Warsaw, and talked about the creation of a European super-power. Locking together the comments that I quoted, one is struck by the fact that there are ambitions that the Government never seem to admit. As I shall explain shortly, the dangers are far too grave to be laughed at.
Dr. Julian Lewis: In fairness to the Prime Minister, he said that he wanted to create a European super-power,
744
not a European superstate. Can my hon. Friend or, indeed, anyone else, throw any light whatever on the difference and distinction between the two?
Mr. Duncan Smith: I find it difficult to throw any light on the what the Prime Minister says at any time. The example that I gave was a classic case of the Prime Minister saying two things that run counter to one another and pretending different things to whatever audience he is addressing. He spun the super-power message to the audience in Europe which, he thought, wanted to hear that. However, to the audience back home, such as The Sun, he spun the message about not being a superstate.
Mr. Malcolm Savidge: If the hon. Gentleman will excuse me, I thought that our debate was supposed to be about the defence of Britain, not attacking Europe.
Mr. Duncan Smith: The hon. Gentleman's intervention spoke for itself. Indeed, that was all that it did.
Mr. Bercow: Does my hon. Friend think it significant that the former Irish Prime Minister John Bruton, when reflecting on his experiences in government, recently observed that member states will not be able to dine à la carte any more? He said that Europe needs to develop effective political institutions, which demands sacrifices of Europe's peoples and mobilising them in a common cause. Could that be any clearer?
Mr. Duncan Smith: Absolutely not. I hope that the quotations that I have used say something similar about defence.
I am trying to point out that grandiose ambitions have no part in strengthening NATO and are more about creating a European view that is against of our other allies. I am not in favour of that, as it would be bad for the rest of the world.
The Secretary of State discussed America's attitude to ESDI. He and his colleagues are always saying that that is all right, although I agree with the hon. Member for Stockton, North that the Government are not all of that opinion. I shall deal with what the Secretary of State said. Last year, the Deputy Secretary of State, Strobe Talbot, warned against what should not happen. He said:
We would not want to see an ESDI that comes into being first within NATO but then grows out of NATO and finally grows away from NATO, since that would lead to an ESDI that initially duplicates NATO but that could eventually compete with NATO
Straining every spinning sinew, however, the Government try to re-interpret every United States comment on the issue. On 11 October, The Times somehow reported that William Cohen's speech in Birmingham, to which the Secretary of State referred, demonstrated a
sharp break with America's previous tepid support
for European security and defence policy.
At a subsequent press conference, however, having read and denied such reports, Mr. Cohen went on to say:
I know that some have interpreted my prepared statement as somehow being divergent from the US position. It is not…What we don't want to see is a separate planning bureaucracy established that is independent and separate from that of NATO itself.

745
As I explained earlier, however, that is what we are progressively getting.
It is small wonder that Mr. Cohen has previously voiced concerns. On 6 February, in Munich, he said:
My fear is that we will see European nations construct a new bureaucracy.
Mr. Hoon: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Duncan Smith: I shall in a minute.
Mr. Cohen added that, if the EU members of the alliance kept cutting their defence spending, they would undermine the alliance instead of building a stronger European defence pillar. I agree with the Secretary of State that it is absolutely clear that the United States wants an improved capability. However, it is clear also that an improved capability is not the primary objective of most of those who are involved in the process. Indeed, it is very low on their list of objectives.
Mr. Hoon: When the United States Defence Secretary was saying that his policy was not in any way diverging from what had gone before, he was making it clear that what had gone before was consistent United States Administration support for the policy of the headline goal. The hon. Gentleman tended to give the House the impression that that might not be the case, but I am sure that he will want to take this opportunity to correct that impression.
Mr. Duncan Smith: Mr. Cohen has made himself absolutely clear: he wants improved NATO capabilities. I agree with that objective. He is also saying, however, that that is not likely to happen. I am simply saying that I do not believe that it is happening. New structures are being developed beyond NATO which, ultimately, will weaken NATO. We cannot build a new building and maintain the old one while taking bricks from it, but that is what is now happening.
Far from our creating improvements in capabilities, defence spending in key European countries is decreasing very quickly. According to Die Welt of 13 October, the lack of defence spending in Germany has resulted in the restructured Bundeswehr being
neither completely alliance-capable nor Europe-capable.
This year, the International Institute for Strategic Studies has again found that, in most west European countries, military spending remains in decline. In 1999, defence spending in European NATO countries decreased in real terms by 5 per cent. Despite all the Secretary of State's statements and talk of capability, across Europe, budgets for 2000 indicate a further 6 per cent. decrease.
I should like to deal with a rather important development which, if not threatening, certainly creates the type of environment in which United States detachment and NATO debilitation are facilitated. While the Americans have given only a conditional acknowledgement of ESDP, the Russians have wholeheartedly welcomed it. On Tuesday, the Financial Times reported that Russia and the European Union have
agreed Russia could be involved in future EU-led crisis management operations.
The Russians have welcomed the initiative since way back, at St. Malo, and have made it absolutely clear that the initiative would be best if—as they hoped and
746
believed it would‖it progressively decoupled the United States from Europe. The Financial Times article seems to show that the general trend in both Paris and Moscow is to welcome the EU's military plans as a step towards creating a counterbalance to American hegemony and NATO-centrism.
Mr. Cash: My hon. Friend may not wish to follow me down this route, but he will of course recall that Javier Solana campaigned against NATO for seven years—although he now has the top slot in the European dimension in dealing with the matter—[Interruption.] It is all very well for the Secretary of State to laugh, but he knows that that is true.
Mr. Hoon: It is wrong.
Mr. Cash: As a Minister in Spain, Mr. Solana campaigned against NATO for seven years—[Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. May I urge the hon. Gentleman not to have a debate with the Secretary of State but to come to the point of his intervention?
Mr. Cash: Would my hon. Friend concur that the extremely important article by Robert Fox in The Sunday Telegraph last weekend identified the deep concerns that Washington and the Pentagon now have about this matter? In the article, a Foreign Office official was quoted as saying:
I think the Prime Minister has really dropped the ball on this. If we sign up at Nice to what the French seem to be wanting, there could be no going back.
Mr. Duncan Smith: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, whose attempted exchange with the Secretary of State was most interesting. The Secretary of State seems not to know anything at all about history or about the past of people who are meant to be his political colleagues in Europe. It is a matter of fact that Monsieur Solana—[Interruption.] Mr. Solana—[Interruption.] Senor Solana—[Interruption.] I am getting it right. I know who he is and where he came from, which is a great deal more than the Secretary of State knows. I suspect I also know what Mr. Solana is doing, which is more than the Secretary of State does. Mr. Solana's background is beyond question. The Secretary of State should do a little reading before he talks; it might help him to debate.
In conclusion, I want to say why I think the process is so dangerous. There has been a misunderstanding of the alliance's need for development and force projection. Paragraph 206 of the excellent Kosovo report from the Select Committee makes it clear:
If NATO is to meet the challenges of future crises—particularly in response to asymmetric threats—it must improve its performance in a number of planning aspects. First, it must streamline its own crisis management planning system.
The report went on to talk in detail about how NATO must improve and restructure itself and learn the lessons to which the Committee referred. I agree and I look forward to a proper debate on that matter. However, that debate must take place now.
We are seeing a diversion from a concentration on making NATO even better and learning the lessons. We are seeing a progressive sliding away of capabilities and

747
other matters that should apply to NATO but which now will apply elsewhere. If the European nations will not spend the sort of money about which the Americans and NATO have been talking for many years, where will the 200,000 men to be nominated for the new European defence force come from? They will simply come from what would have been available on call for NATO. It is not a new force; it is leaching away capability and forces that would have been there before.
It is assumed automatically that there will be a time when the whole of the EU will enjoy a foreign policy agreement that will allow it to deploy force; force that is not agreed with or involving the Americans and is not of any interest to those Europeans who are members of NATO but not members of the EU. There is an assumption that there will be some clear-cut position that will construct walls between our allies within NATO. so that we do not sort out problems and develop projects with them, but do so in isolation. Ultimately, it is about a new sort of new Berlin wall between those who have been reliable and successful allies within NATO.
The most alarming part of the process is that after the 50 or so years of success of NATO, a British Prime Minister should be leading the process. None of the real lessons from that history has been learned, and all the most dangerous aspects are being applied. The Government's European policy is set to drive us away from the US, which would necessarily be bad for them and for us, affecting the cornerstone for security not just in Europe but globally. The policy is also about the setting up of artificial barriers and a smokescreen, behind which far too many European members of NATO will find an excuse to simply lessen their capabilities and get the Americans off their backs. That is why the Government's actions will not increase or improve capability but are more likely to give an excuse to lessen it.
Evidence of that has already been seen in the Government's position, along with that of the French and German Governments, on ballistic missile defence. That is the most critical issue currently testing NATO and the Government's historical role in binding together the alliance on both sides of the Atlantic and keeping it coherent. Here is a clear, growing threat, and I believe that the Ministry of Defence has told the Secretary of State that it is a reality. I think that it believes that over a period of between five and 10 years, such threats, whether made by terrorists or involving ballistic missiles—which are growing in capability—will be delivered. Only the other day, the Iranians tested a missile that was just short of 1,000 miles in capability, yet that has been consistently dismissed by the Government, in the body of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. These developments are taking place.
The Government have failed to give any lead in Europe for a debate to get together the Americans and the rest of the European allies to discuss how NATO can deal with this growing threat. Instead, there are slanging matches in some of the capitals of Europe, and the Government are sitting on the fence, quietly hoping that the whole thing will go away. It will not.
We are talking about an abrogation of responsibility. The British Government's traditional role is to make sure that we do not allow matters such as these to divide or split the alliance. On two clear counts, the test on the
748
ballistic missile issue will do that because the Government have seen fit to hide behind their other allies on continental Europe.
In conclusion, the Government's policy, which rests so heavily on the European agenda, will not only divide NATO but damage the peace, potential and future for the rest of the world in a way which, if they had any honesty or sense of shame, they will come to regret.
5.32 pm
Mr. Frank Cook: I wish to show no disrespect to you or to the Chair, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I had hoped to be able to open with a brief reference to Mr. Speaker. So as to keep things in order, might I beg a favour from you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and ask you to convey my remarks to Mr. Speaker? This is my first speech in the parent Chamber since the summer recess, and I wanted to register formally my congratulations and good wishes to Mr. Speaker, particularly in the week that his canonised predecessor has been appointed by the Roman Curia as the patron saint of politicians. In doing that, I suppose I should invoke support and help from that sanctified gentleman for the speech that I am about to make.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sure that Mr. Speaker would love to receive a letter.
Mr. Cook: In that case, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I will have to learn to write.
I begin with an apology for being unable to attend tomorrow's debate because I am required to participate in Brussels in the joint monitoring group of the permanent joint council of NATO. I am sorry about that.
I agree with the hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) on a couple of points—no more than a couple. First, I agree that we should change the nature of these debates. I have complained about this before. Each year we have these two-day defence debates, which are rather like a bran tub containing a host of issues that we can pick and mix, dip into and throw out. There is no real main theme. The hon. Gentleman has chosen for his two main themes the two hot potatoes of the day. He is right to do so. The first hot potato is ESDP, and the second is national missile defence. I would dearly love there to be proper debates, with specific motions, on those issues.
For a start, a debate on ESDP would enable the demolition of some of the misrepresentative and distorting statements that have been made today. Moreover, my experience a fortnight ago at the space command centre in Colorado Springs indicates that national missile defence can only become an even hotter potato than it is already, as the intention is to replace the static array at Fylingdales with an X-band radar station.
My constituents live near enough to Fylingdales to be worried about that, especially given the strategic approach known as decapitation. The mission statement says that the X-band radar is supposed to protect the 50 states of America, so a serious attack on the United States would take out its defence systems first. Fylingdales would therefore be hit, as would Thule air base in Greenland and Shemya island in the Pacific.
The better informed we become on this matter, the more sensible will be our ultimate decision. The hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green was right to

749
say that the alliance will be put to a real test, but I think that ESDP is being developed properly, as the right hon. Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith) will confirm. I should like the hon. Gentleman to come to Berlin in a fortnight's time—
Mr. Duncan Smith: I will.
Mr. Cook: Good. The hon. Gentleman will then be able to listen to the debate on these matters in the NATO parliamentary assembly. The picture presented there will be entirely different from that offered to the House this afternoon.
Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: My knowledge of the NATO parliamentary assembly leads me to fear that the hon. Gentleman is giving an incorrect impression. There is considerable criticism and unease about the extent to which the European security and defence identity might interfere with the close relationship that we have always enjoyed with the United States through the NATO alliance.
Mr. Cook: I am grateful for that observation, with which I agree entirely. My point was not that there was no unease in the assembly, but that the views represented there would paint a picture that is totally different from that presented this afternoon. There is a positive quest in the assembly to resolve problems that have been depicted today as set in stone. That depiction is not true.
I want to return to my bran tub analogy, as I did not expect to get on this hobby-horse quite so early in my speech. I want to raise a number of issues that I would normally have raised in the Select Committee on Defence. As I am no longer a member of that Committee, I cannot do so, but I am obliged to fulfil promises that I have made to my constituents.
The first point has to do with the Fellowship of the Services, an organisation that meets routinely and regularly in my constituency. Its members travel many miles to meetings, at which attendance averages between 55 and 60. That organisation has made clear to me its resentment that the royal tournament, the Edinburgh tattoo and similar events have come under threat.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is listening intently, for which I am grateful, and I hope that he will consider the matter again. The members of the organisation are fiercely and passionately loyal. They take great pride in their record of service to the Crown, but feel that the regard in which they are held is being diminished. I know that that cannot be true, but I hope that my right hon. Friend will be able to say something to reinforce their confidence.
The second issue, that of the Gurkhas, is one that has been raised by several right hon. and hon. Members, including the right hon. Member for Wealden, and it is one that is causing consternation among ex-service men in my constituency and throughout the north-east. I understand that resolution of the problem will probably mean challenging some European employment law. Many people feel strongly that the Gurkhas, who have offered themselves in every era of hostility that the British Army has passed through in heaven knows how long, should be able to come here and work as drivers on a temporary basis. There is a double irony in the fact that while the
750
British Army is training drivers for the purposes of fuel delivery contingency plans, we are refusing to allow former members of the British Army—that is what they were—to come here and do a similar job. I ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to reconsider whether it is possible to resolve any possible problem between the ability of the Gurkhas to come here on a temporary basis and European employment law.
The third issue that I have undertaken to raise, on which other hon. Members agree with me, is an old chestnut of mine—the British Nuclear Tests Veterans Association. Victims of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease are being given a sympathetic ear. We have heard today the Prime Minister give a very sure indication that sympathetic consideration will be given to ex-prisoners of war held by the Japanese.
Dr. Godman: So they should.
Mr. Cook: Indeed. After a long-fought battle, there has been a decent response to victims of Gulf war syndrome. The people who are not getting any sympathy other than a pat on the head and have not received even an apology are those members of the armed forces, both men and women, who were deliberately exposed to radiation at Christmas island, Montebello, Maralinga and Easter island. Some were required in various forms of garb to roll in the dust on the ground at ground-zero after the explosions had occurred. They did that because they had been asked to volunteer. It is always a dangerous game to volunteer in the forces—or in here for that matter. They did so readily and willingly and as such they deserve the same treatment that New Zealanders, Americans and Australians are receiving from their Governments for performing the same tasks. I appeal yet again most urgently to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to take the matter on board, to think about it and to admit that he is thinking about it.
The penultimate issue is another passionate interest of mine. It relates to unexploded ordnance. The House will know that I am the founding chairman of the parliamentary all-party group on land mine eradication. I commend the Government for the work that they have undertaken and the initiatives that they have launched. They are providing an example for many other nations to follow. However, cluster bomblets are not classified as anti-personnel mines. They are a much more insidious threat. As one person explained to me, an anti-personnel mine will rip off a person's arm or leg whereas a cluster bomblet will blow him into several pieces because it is so much more powerful. There are literally millions of those around the world. In Xieng Khouang in Laos, I picked up eight of them in an hour and 10 minutes—only realising afterwards what a fool I had been. However, I felt compelled to do it. A school playground that had been sterilised by them for well over 30 years was needed for the following weekend, so I decided to engage in the clearance—simply relocating the mines so that the Mines Action Group could deal with them. It was pretty stupid of me to do that, but I do not regret it.
I have heard the briefings given at NATO headquarters on its attitude on cluster bomblets. What are my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's views on our approach to those weapons—on their definition and use and on clearing up the areas where they are a major source of contamination?

751
I conclude by making several points on arms control that are in keeping with the general attitude of Her Majesty's Government towards the proliferation of small arms.
Four years after the publication of the Scott report, legislation has not been passed on its recommendations. Indications suggest that the Government will not introduce such legislation in next month's Queen's Speech. Current legislation was introduced as an emergency measure in 1939 at the start of the second world war. Despite publishing a White Paper in 1998, the Government have yet to introduce legislation to close the many loopholes in the current outdated and inadequate regime. As a result, they are still not equipped with the formal tools to guarantee that UK arms transfers do not contribute to human rights violations or fuel conflict or to the undermining of development.
We need to control arms brokering—whereby UK suppliers deliver weapons sourced outside the UK and which is carried out through the registration and licensing of deals. At present, there are virtually no controls as long as the goods do not touch UK soil. Even current proposals to ban the brokering of torture equipment and to ban brokering to countries subject to arms embargoes do not go far enough. Evidence suggests that UK-based arms brokers already evade embargoes by supplying arms to such destinations via recipients in neighbouring countries.
On 10 September, The Observer stated:
One Birmingham-based company, HPP, last week offered to help arrange delivery of leg irons and CS gas to a private security company in Rwanda, where ethnic tension between Hutu and Tutsi tribes is still simmering after up to a million people died in the 1994 genocide.
In addition, there are several countries—such as Colombia—which are not the subject of an embargo, but to which unregulated arms brokering would clearly fuel armed conflict and existing human rights violations.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry stated:
In this country you need a licence to marry, to go fishing, to drive a car—you even need a licence to run a raffle. Yet you don't need a licence to broker and traffic in arms. This cannot be right.
I agree with him. He announced that the Government will close that loophole, and I am pleased about that, but he did not say when. Will my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence answer that question?
We need to establish strict controls on licensed production—whereby a UK company allows its products to be manufactured and sold by an overseas company. That permits further evasions. In December 1999, a Channel 4 "Dispatches" programme revealed that a Turkish company had made Heckler and Koch UK submachine guns under licence. I have no objection to that, but I do object to the fact that it then sold 500 of them to the Indonesian police at the height of the East Timor crisis. That is what is wrong.
We need to examine end-use monitoring. Currently, no formal mechanisms exist for monitoring the use of British defence equipment once it has been exported. On 25 July 1999, the chief of the Indonesian armed forces admitted that a British-made Hawk jet flew over Dili, despite earlier assurances to the Government that Hawk jets

752
would not be used in East Timor. Despite that clear breach of end-use assurances, the supply of jets and components has continued. Is that right? Can it go on?
We need tough new legislation. A Gallup poll at the start of the year showed that 87 per cent. of the British public believe that the Government should introduce tighter controls on United Kingdom arms sales as soon as possible—ideally, in the forthcoming Queen's Speech. Failing that, there should be a manifesto commitment to legislate early in the new Parliament. Ironically, at the last arms fair in this country, the Romanians were trying to sell anti-personnel mines. We need much tougher legislation on the control of arms sales in this country.
To control arms brokering, a central database of UK arms brokers should be established and all arms supplies arranged by UK brokers should be subject to the licensed approval of the Government. That is what we have a Government for. We should bring licensed production under the UK arms general export controls. All licensed production should be treated as standard physical arms transfers. The licence determination procedure must be as rigorous as for standard exports. We accidentally discovered the Iranian gun barrels in Cleveland only because they were described as pipework and therefore aroused suspicion.
It is essential to introduce a robust system of monitoring to the end-use of UK arms exports. Suppliers should be responsible for obtaining the verification of delivery from the named end-user and submitting that, within a given time, to the Department of Trade and Industry. All contracts and end-use certificates should require customers never to use their goods for human rights abuses. I know that this sounds like pie in the sky, but we must make efforts to achieve that, and where assurances are broken, contracts should be rendered null and void and further deliveries and repair services cancelled.
The Government also need to promote greater democratic control via a more robust parliamentary scrutiny of arms export licences. They need to adopt a presumption against licensing military equipment for export to countries where they might be used to abuse human rights, fuel conflicts or undermine development. The Government need to seek agreement, within the European Union and internationally, on common controls.
In the light of the great public concern that I detect on these issues, I just hope that the Government will take time to give serious consideration to the possible inclusion of some corrective measures in the forthcoming Queen's Speech.
5.53 pm
Mr. Menzies Campbell: Perhaps I might begin with an apology to the House. I have a long-standing engagement later this evening and therefore cannot be present for the winding-up speeches, but I have written to the shadow Secretary of State and to the Secretary of State to apologise and I will of course be present throughout tomorrow's debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Hereford (Mr. Keetch) will seek, if he is fortunate enough, to catch the eye of the Speaker tomorrow to focus on some welfare and armed forces issues and also on procurement matters, so I leave those matters in his entirely capable hands.
I associate myself with the expressions of support that have been given to the armed forces on behalf of the Government and the official Opposition, and with the

753
expressions of condolence that have been directed towards the friends and relations of Brad Tinnion and others who suffered injury in the course of the very successful operation in Sierra Leone, which has been mentioned.
I give a qualified welcome to the announcement by the Secretary of State that we will at least have one hunter-killer submarine operational. What a gross embarrassment it would have been for the United Kingdom if we had been forced to withdraw all our hunter-killer submarines just a few months ago, at the time of the Kosovo operations—not least because one of them was engaged in firing Tomahawk cruise missiles, which, as we now learn, were perhaps the most precision-guided of all the ordnance that was used by British forces during those operations.
The problem with that submarine class is still an embarrassment, in the sense that only one of 12 hunter-killer submarines can be deployed, and that must inevitably raise questions about the necessary support for Trident; and about the extent to which we could, in an emergency, utilise the deterrent effect of the deployment of a submarine, and also the use of submarines for clandestine or covert operations of the type that the special forces are often called on to perform.
Nevertheless, I took some further encouragement from the fact that the Secretary of State appears to have a rather more open mind on the question of the fitting of the type 45 destroyers with a Tomahawk capability. If flexibility is to be an important part of the training, the attitude and the deployment of the personnel of the armed services, it makes a great deal of sense to have flexibility in the platforms that we are likely to use in future. The Tomahawk cruise missile, with its capability for precision, is obviously a very important addition to the United Kingdom's defence capability and it reflects the closeness of the relationship between the United Kingdom and America that those missiles are supplied to us. I believe that only one other country—Australia—has access to that weapons system.
I do think—this is just a rehearsal of a point that I made last week when the matter was dealt with in a statement by the Minister for the Armed Forces—that we now have a very potent and significant opportunity to enhance European co-operation. Our French allies have six hunter-killer submarines and as we know, four nuclear submarines, SSBNs—strategic submarine ballistic nuclear—and it seems entirely sensible to use the restrictions under which the British fleet will have to operate as a mechanism for discussing, and perhaps putting into operation, a far greater degree of co-operation with the French. There is already a measure of co-operation in nuclear matters. It is the co-operation that dare not speak its name, but this would be an opportunity to see just how closely the two navies could co-operate with each other.
I make all these arguments with a certain feeling of what Burns, the famous Scottish poet, once described as the "unco guid"—those who feel over-confident in their own righteousness—because when the Upholder sale was first proposed I was one of those who opposed it, but I never thought that my opposition would be demonstrated to be so well founded quite so quickly.
I turn now to an issue—this is rather on the bran tub principle of the hon. Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook)—that is now causing a great deal of concern on both sides of the House and in the other place: the
754
crash of the Chinook helicopter on the Mull of Kintyre. I am not the only one to have a deep sense of unease about the finding of negligence made against the deceased pilots. However, I want to make it clear at the outset of this passage of my speech that I do not believe that there is any question of bad faith, or of cover-up or anything of that kind. I believe that a mistake has been made, and that that mistake should be put right.
I was one of those who first became involved when I was approached by the family of one of the pilots. Notably, the anxiety about these matters, which, to begin with, was shared by just four or five of us, is spreading throughout the House. One need only look at the Order Paper to see the number of questions that are now being tabled as demonstrating an interest on the part of many hon. and right hon. Members about whether the decision taken, with particular regard to the finding of negligence, should be allowed to stand.
It is worth reminding ourselves that the RAF's own regulations at the time provided that before a finding of negligence could be made, every other possible cause had to be excluded. The RAF's regulation applied a higher standard than the standard in a criminal court. A person could be convicted of murder in this country on a lower standard than the RAF's own regulation required before a finding of negligence could be held to be established.
We had in Scotland a fatal accident inquiry, which is roughly equivalent to a coroner's inquest although different in some material respects. Sheriff Sir Stephen Young, a most careful, thorough and conscientious middle-ranking judge in Scotland, conducted the inquiry and, at the end of it, he had to apply the civil standard of the balance of probability—the lowest of the three standards of proof. After 16 days of evidence in a process in which all the relevant interests were represented and the pilots representatives were able to ask questions in cross-examination, Sheriff Sir Stephen Young refused to accept on a balance of probability—that low standard of proof—that the Ministry of Defence account had been established sufficiently in the evidence put before him. That is a most significant feature of the whole case.
My motive is not the embarrassment of the Ministry of the Defence or the Government. Only eight or nine days ago, there was much debate in the Chamber about the purpose of Parliament and the role of parliamentarians. I have always thought that Parliament existed for the redress of grievances and the families of the two pilots—the Tapper and the Cook families—most certainly have a grievance. In my judgment, it is high time that Parliament gave them redress.
On Sierra Leone, there are three clear foreign policy objectives in our presence there. The first is to sustain the legitimate Government of a Commonwealth country of which the United Kingdom is the former colonial power. The second is to protect innocent civilians from the brutality of the rebel factions and the third is to help to preserve the rule of law and to ensure the human rights of the citizens of that country.
What are the military means to be used to achieve those foreign policy objectives? I support the training to a sufficiently high standard of a sufficient number of troops to provide the legitimate Government with the means of enforcing their writ throughout the whole country. I have seen that taking place at first hand. It is entirely sensible, and it is precisely the sort of objective that the United

755
Kingdom should support and help to bring about. I also believe that, as part of the military means of achieving the foreign policy objectives to which I have referred, we have an obligation to provide support to a United Nations force that consists of an adequate number of competent troops properly equipped to fulfil the United Nations mandate.
In May this year, the UN effort nearly collapsed. Only United Kingdom intervention saved it from ignominy. Those of us who went to Sierra Leone at the invitation of the Secretary of State for Defence know that the UN effort has been very largely prejudiced by personality clashes and jealousies on the military and civilian sides. We do not need to go into them now, but they have undoubtedly had a significant effect on the UN effort in that country. That effort has unquestionably been undermined by the withdrawal of the Indian and Jordanian troops, who represented some of the best troops offered to the UN for service in Sierra Leone.
I understand from anecdotal evidence that the United Kingdom Government are now seeking to persuade other European countries that have armed forces of a high standard to make a contribution to the UN force. What chance of success is there in persuading other European countries to become part of the UN force if we are not willing to join it ourselves? Today, we hear reports of the entirely welcome appointment of Brigadier Alastair Duncan to be the chief of staff of the UN force. If we are good enough and sufficiently committed enough to provide the chief of staff, why not provide some forces themselves?
The UN is present in Sierra Leone to provide a necessary support for the Government forces to enable their task to be achieved quickly and effectively. The present arrangements are more likely to prolong the United Kingdom involvement rather than to shorten it—more likely to delay the achievement of the foreign policy objectives that I set out earlier.
Mr. Duncan Smith: The right hon. and learned Gentleman and I were both in Sierra Leone in July. Does he accept that, for whatever reason, the UN lacked the determination to take on the rebels and push them back from the areas that they held? That is why the country remains so destabilised and why the vacuum that is created tends to suck in British involvement. If the UN had such determination, that might lead to a quicker solution and put the Government of Sierra Leone into a stronger position.
Mr. Campbell: I have a great deal of sympathy for that view. The hon. Gentleman may recall that it was explained to us that the trained forces of the Government were to be responsible for taking ground and that the UN should follow them and hold that ground. That suggests that one cannot draw an artificial distinction between training a sufficient number of suitably competent Government forces and the UN effort. They are two sides of the same coin. The duration of the commitment in Sierra Leone can only be lengthened by the fact—as the hon. Gentleman rightly points out—that there appeared to be no sufficient enthusiasm or drive at the top or elsewhere in the UN force to fulfil its mandate. It is not a question of the terms of the mandate, but of the political willingness to enforce it.
756
On Kosovo, we have recently received the report of the Select Committee on Defence. So far as the report makes a point about the ruling out of a ground campaign from the beginning, that vindicates the position taken on behalf of the Liberal Democrats by my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Paddy Ashdown), who consistently argued that the threat of ground attack should be maintained. So far as the report says that air power alone did not achieve success in Kosovo, I agree with it. So far as it suggests that Russian influence on Mr. Milosevic should not be discounted, I agree with it, too. However, I cannot avoid the recollection in this most adversarial of Chambers that the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) was at pains to call for the ground option to be ruled out at the very beginning of the operation.
The report identifies shortcomings in equipment. Many of them were well known and date from much earlier than the life of this Government. The report identifies that mistakes were made and that things might have been done differently. All of that is true, but much of the report seems to be an assembly of earlier evidence on the Kosovo operations. It is expressed in language that I regard as unduly apocalyptic, and I can corroborate my view by comparing the language of the report with the extremely measured speech made by the Chairman of the Select Committee on Defence, the hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George), last Thursday in a debate that was ostensibly about defence procurement.
Those who criticise the Kosovo operations because of their consequences should be put to the test of telling us their analysis of what the consequences would have been if there had been no intervention. The 800,000 people who were driven out of Kosovo had absolutely no doubt in their minds as to what was required. I heard that directly from some of the people whom I met in one of the refugee camps that I visited with the then Secretary of State for Defence, Lord Robertson.
We may not have won as well or as easily in Kosovo as we would have wished, and present circumstances may be far from ideal, but it is worth reminding ourselves that, after years of repression and months of persecution, arcadia or utopia are difficult to build. We are entitled to draw encouragement from the successful conduct of local government elections in the past few days.
I am in no doubt whatever that the conduct of any war and this war in particular requires a blunt post-mortem examination. For example, lack of precision-guided munitions and the use of cluster bombs—to which the hon. Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) referred and about which I feel considerable apprehension—were severe defects in NATO's armoury and they led to an excess of civilian casualties.
We should acknowledge that. If we are to improve and if we want to avoid civilian casualties, we might need to invest in some more expensive weapons. It is notable that the most vociferous critics of the use of cluster bombs or the absence of precision-guided munitions have rarely been the most enthusiastic supporters of any increase in defence expenditure.
Mr. John Smith: On the success of the operation in Kosovo, is the right hon. and learned

757
Gentleman pleased with the outcome of the recent local elections, in which the party of Ibrahim Rugova—one of the moderates in Kosovo—was elected?
Mr. Campbell: The hon. Gentleman makes a sound political point. Let us remember that Dr. Rugova was, as it were, pushed to one side just before the worst of the excesses of the Serbs, and exiled to Italy. For some time, Mr. Thaci appeared to hold centre stage politically. The interesting feature of the elections is that Dr. Rugova appears to have regained his prominence, although Mr. Thaci won a significant percentage of the vote and therefore a significant percentage of seats. Not only the facts but the outcome of the elections is encouraging.
It is my firm belief that without intervention—however flawed and imperfect it may have been—rape, murder and brutality would have won the day and Milosevic would have been even more difficult to dislodge than he ultimately proved to be.
The subject of Kosovo leads me neatly to discussion of the European security and defence policy, which has bulked large in this afternoon's proceedings. It now appears that, if George W. Bush becomes United States President, Miss Condoleeza Rice and Mr. Colin Powell are likely to be driving forces in the Bush Administration. One would have to search assiduously to find any evidence on the record of their enthusiasm for any United States presence in the Balkans.
Mr. Powell was the subject of that rather withering question from Madeleine Albright at the height of the difficulties in Bosnia, when he once again made the case that not a single American soldier should be there on the ground. Madeleine Albright famously asked him, "Well, what are all those soldiers for, then?" He holds a perfectly legitimate position, but has a long history of not wanting United States involvement on the ground in Europe—so, too, Condoleeza Rice.
The Secretary-General of NATO, Lord Robertson, our former Secretary of State for Defence, is reported in today's newspapers as saying that he thinks that the Bush Administration would not withdraw troops from the Balkans. The fact that he has to say that shows that there is some doubt. That doubt is in some measure corroborated by reports in American newspapers over the past 10 days that suggest something rather different.
That tells us—it certainly tells me—that a European security and defence policy is not desirable but necessary. Europe left to its own devices—save in the matter of collective security under article 5 of the Washington treaty, by which the United States would always regard itself as bound—must find the means of organising its resources so that capability is maintained. We should not shrink from the conclusion that capability may require additional expenditure. Too often, that is finessed in European capitals by saying that we must spend better rather than more. It might be possible to spend better, but if we want to maintain capability in an area where the inflation rate is always higher than either the underlying or headline rates in the countries concerned, additional expenditure might be necessary.
How can we possibly provide 60,000 troops who are capable of rapid deployment, properly supported and capable of being sustained for 12 months, unless they are properly funded and resourced? I say to those who have sometimes a visceral anti-Europeanism that the truth is
758
that a strong ESDP will strengthen NATO, but a weak one would undoubtedly damage it. That is why I have no doubt that if we wish to strengthen NATO, we must demonstrate first, that there is a much stronger European commitment to it, and secondly, that, if necessary, in the absence of the United States, Turkey and other members of NATO but not of the European Union, Europe can act alone. That is also why I argue firmly for what is called the right of first refusal.
I was disappointed that the Secretary of State was a little dismissive of such a proposal. It has great merit—militarily and politically. It ensures that NATO—by which I mean all its members—will never be left out. It particularly deals with the problems of Turkey, which was one of NATO's guardians of the southern flank for so long and which has not yet been admitted to the EU—for some good and compelling reasons. To Turkey, European Union membership is a matter of some psychological anxiety. The proposal would ensure that it would not feel in some way eliminated from such considerations.
The proposal would also deal with the problem of the countries that have recently joined NATO, such as the Czech Republic and Hungary, which immediately had to take some difficult decisions in the course of the Kosovo operations, only to find that there might be European activity from which they would be excluded because they are not EU members. That is damaging to the fabric of NATO and its cohesion.
The right of first refusal, which does not seem to be as difficult to organise as the Secretary of State appeared to think, would mean that the first group of people to consider a crisis would be NATO ambassadors in Brussels. What could be better designed to ensure that NATO felt that it was not being pushed to one side by European enthusiasts and zealots?
Mr. Gerald Howarth: How does the right hon. and learned Gentleman square his natural anxieties, which we all share, with the very clear statement of some of our European partners that they see the creation of the force as an embryonic European army? Surely that poses a threat to the very heart of NATO, which he is anxious to protect.
Mr. Campbell: There would be a threat to NATO only if there were universal acceptance of the position that the hon. Gentleman describes. The United Kingdom Government are not alone in saying, as I understand, that they are not in favour of what is loosely described as a "European army". If, as the hon. Gentleman says, all EU members were to sign up to some of the rather overblown rhetoric, the risk would exist. However, let us remember that the treaties provide for nothing other than unanimity.
It is worth reminding some of our Conservative friends that the fons et origo of much of this debate is the Maastricht treaty. The shadow Defence Secretary has, shall we say, taken a consistent position on the Maastricht treaty. I was about to say an honourable position—
Mr. Howarth: And honourable.
Mr. Campbell: Very well; I shall concede that his position is honourable, too. However, that was not his party's position, as others may remember. Those of us who survived will remember three-line Whips, 10 o'clock

759
votes and 10 o'clock business motions that could not be moved. The beginning of all this was Maastricht—the treaty that the then Prime Minister exhorted and abjured us all to support.
Dr. Godman: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
Mr. Campbell: I should like to make a little progress and deal with national missile defence.
The United States' determination to proceed with national missile defence depends on a flawed assessment of threat. It is true that there are rogue states or states of concern. There are some deeply unpleasant regimes, but we must ask ourselves whether they are so lacking in comprehension that they would threaten to use, or actually use, weapons of mass destruction against the overwhelming nuclear and conventional military superiority of the United States. I simply do not believe that they would. The classic definition of threat is capability plus intention. States of concern might acquire the capability, but it is difficult to envisage circumstances in which they would have the intention of using it because of the extraordinarily damaging, even apocalyptic, consequences of doing so.
Mr. Frank Cook: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that it was the Korean flight of the Taepo Dong II across Japan that gave rise to the hysteria in the United States; and that now, with improved relations between Kim Dae-jung and Kim Jong Il recently cemented by Madeleine Albright, that hysteria will fade away?
Mr. Campbell: Traditionally, there were four states of concern. In respect of Iran, we are doing our best to ensure that Mr. Khatami's efforts to modernise that country receive as much encouragement as is helpful to him—but not too much, in case it makes his domestic position difficult. Colonel Gaddafi of Libya has made available the two persons alleged to have committed the Lockerbie bombing. Madeleine Albright has paid a visit to North Korea and I understand that the United Kingdom is about to open an embassy there. As for Iraq, the policy is one of containment and has been for the past 10 years. It strikes me that those four states, often cited as the raison d'etre of national missile defence, do not measure up to the seriousness with which they are apparently regarded by some on Capitol Hill.
Mr. Duncan Smith: Surely, the right hon. and learned Gentleman is approaching the matter from the wrong angle. Two problems remain: first, that those states continue to develop and to obtain such missiles—I mentioned Iran recently testing a missile with a range of about 900 miles; and secondly, the terrorist threat. However, the real point is that the overwhelming capabilities of NATO show such states that a conventional conflict precludes the possibility of them influencing events, whereas a cheap, simple option is available whereby they use threats to get their way. The west's fear might deliver a different result from the one that was achieved in Kosovo.
Mr. Campbell: The consequence is to destroy the basis on which the nuclear balance has been maintained for the
760
past 30 or 40 years—deterrence. The anti-ballistic missile treaty was entered into to preserve the principle of deterrence.
It is worth noting that in the "Joint Vision 2020" document, United States defence planners identified China as a potential threat to US security in the 21st century. Are we expected to believe that, once a so-called limited missile defence has been established to protect the US from states of concern, domestic pressure in the US will not grow to expand it to cover larger missile capabilities? Can the US square the circle by insisting on protection against North Korea, but accepting vulnerability to China?
If the system is deployed in a limited fashion, the case will be made to deploy it far more extensively, which will trigger a response in the form of an increased effort to increase nuclear capability. The Chinese have already made that plain. That would inevitably evoke a response from India, which would, in turn, evoke one from Pakistan. How will the United States profit if global security systems are rejected in favour of competition between states to increase nuclear stockpiles? NMD will neither provide the security for which its supporters hope, nor bring stability and certainty to the rest of us. NMD has a remarkable capacity for damaging relations within NATO, weakening the cohesion of that alliance and dividing Europe from the United States.
NMD will undermine the principle of deterrence on which the fragile strategic balance is built at a time when opportunities to achieve an overall reduction in nuclear weapons have never been greater. As Russia encounters increasing economic difficulty in maintaining nuclear weapons, we are presented with an obvious opportunity to negotiate, through a START 3 treaty, far greater reductions on both sides than have previously been envisaged. It would be a great pity if those opportunities were to be given up. Matters are not made easier by the fact that the United States Senate rejected ratification of the comprehensive test ban treaty. That decision carries considerable implications—at least in the mind of those in the Duma—regarding the extent to which multilateral nuclear disarmament can be achieved and maintained.
In its recent report on weapons of mass destruction, the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs said:
it is incumbent on the Government, as one of the five nuclear weapons states and a close ally of the United States, to make an early public statement on its analysis of NMD's likely impact on strategic stability and its assessment of whether this would be in the overall security interests of this country.
I agree—indeed, it might be the only aspect of NMD on which I agree with the hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith). The Government must clearly state their position. It is hugely disingenuous to say that, because no request has been made, they have not considered what their answer would be. If that is true, if I may put it flippantly, what the devil are all the people in the nuclear planning group doing at the Ministry of Defence? There is no card game in town other than NMD and its consequences for nuclear policy in its entirety. The Government should have a position on the matter and the debate would be helped by their stating it—at least we would know whether Ministers agreed with me or with

761
the shadow Defence Secretary. It is a matter of such seriousness that we are entitled to a clear picture of the Government's stance.
Dr. Godman: The right hon. and learned Gentleman mentions the Foreign Affairs Committee, of which I am a member. It said that if a new occupant of the White House sought to implement NMD, there would be profound consequences for the relationship between the United States and the United Kingdom. Our report also pointed out that terrorists—mentioned repeatedly by the hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith)—can carry powerful devices in something as small as a suitcase. What can NMD do in that respect?
Mr. Campbell: I remember a briefing from the director of military intelligence when I was a member of the Select Committee on Defence. I believe that the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) was also present. The director produced a flask about 4in high containing about half a pint of liquid: he said that, by putting it in the London water supply, he could get rid of all the people in London. It seems extraordinary to erect a system that will destabilise the balance of deterrence and has the capacity to cause problems with the cohesion of the alliance in the knowledge that something so small that one could put it in one's hip pocket could achieve what one is trying to prevent without there being any question of identification or anything of that sort. NMD is extremely important, and it is high time the Government told us what their position is.
This is probably the last defence debate before Remembrance day 2000, but such is the state of the Government's management of business that we cannot discount the possibility that we shall be here next week. We talk about defence in the abstract, although some of us have experience of its reality and some of us—voyeur-like—have seen the reality when we visit places such as Kosovo and Sierra Leone. In 10 days' time, at cenotaphs up and down the country—not only here in London, but at tiny war memorials in villages throughout our constituencies—we shall remember those who made a sacrifice for their country. As we talk about defence in the abstract, we do well to remember that those of us who have responsibility for policy and the obligation to influence it have not been called on to make the sacrifice that many ordinary men and women here in the United Kingdom have had to make, and we should never allow their sacrifice to be far from our minds.
6.29 pm
Mr. John Smith: It is a privilege to be able to take up the remarks of the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell). Once again, he made an extremely good speech which contained some important points. I associate myself with his remarks about the remembrance services that will be taking place shortly. I associate myself also with the references to the sterling work that has been undertaken by our armed forces in the past year, and even since we last had a full defence debate.
The right hon. and learned Member talks a great deal of sense. It is sad that the Opposition, in an important debate on defence and the armed forces, produce a load of xenophobic claptrap. The hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) concentrated
762
almost entirely on anti-Europeanism instead of dealing with some of the key defence issues that face the United Kingdom, especially given the many changes that have taken place in the past three years, and especially in the past year alone.
I was horrified to hear the aspersions cast on the former Secretary-General of NATO, Mr. Solana. It was a disgrace that he was referred to in the terms used by Conservative Members. He had an excellent record as Secretary-General. He had to deal with difficult situations in the Balkans and elsewhere, and I think that he did a first-class job.
A strange attitude is being adopted by the Conservative party, which is becoming increasingly isolationist. It is talking more and more to itself and to nobody else. It is so fixated with Europe that it cannot address the serious issues that arise in this debate.
Mr. Robathan: Usually, I do not presume to speak on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash), who is sadly not in his place. If the hon. Gentleman studies the record, I think he will find that when Mr. Solana was a Minister in the Spanish Government, he campaigned for the withdrawal of Spain from NATO. Subsequently, he may have been an excellent Secretary-General of NATO. One of the objections raised by some was that he had campaigned to leave NATO in his early days. I am delighted that he changed his mind.
Mr. Smith: There is no question that Mr. Solana did a terrific job in bringing consensus within the 19 countries of NATO. He engaged in one of the most difficult actions that the organisation has ever faced. The references to him were outrageous. That demonstrates how much the Opposition are out of touch on defence. It was once a great party, which for many years claimed to be the party of defence. After this afternoon's performance, it can no longer claim that. It may be the party that is opposed to Europe.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made a ground-breaking speech at St. Malo. It has been fallaciously portrayed as a U-turn from his previous comments at Amsterdam, but it will stand the test of time. My right hon. Friend said that the defence of Europe will always be left to NATO, and it will. There is no question that under the European security and defence policy, article 5 missions will be carried out by NATO at any time. The defence and common security of Europe will always remain the role of NATO. That is what the Prime Minister has said.
Dr. Julian Lewis: I ask the hon. Gentleman to address the point more closely. Article 5 prescribes that an attack on one NATO country is an attack on all. I am sure that he is right in what he has said about that. Some of us are concerned that if there were to be a crisis that developed and was made subject to crisis management techniques under the European security and defence policy, it could escalate, with other countries being drawn in, in a way that could lead to a result which would not have been brought about if NATO had been involved at the outset.
Mr. Smith: I should like to move on and perhaps address some of the genuine concerns that have arisen in

763
the debate. Before doing so, I shall return to the speech of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. He said that he would not support an unrealistic defence and security policy for Europe. Nothing that has happened and nothing said at St. Malo has had that effect. Crucially, however, the hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green talks about the strategy that was inherited by the Government from the previous Government, which was that of building a European pillar of defence capability within NATO. The simple truth is that it was not working. NATO countries in Europe were not increasing their capability. Indeed, that capability was reducing, and that is still happening.
Under the previous Government, United Kingdom defence forces were not capable of committing assets to NATO to allow it to carry out its defence and security role. That is what Kosovo proved.
Mr. Menzies Campbell: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will cast his mind further back, when we had to put an armoured division into the desert during the Gulf war. It was commonly said that we were able to do that only by cannibalising the tanks of three divisions. It was said also that there was not a working tank left in Germany.
Mr. Smith: Absolutely. The absence of those resources along with those of heavy lift and logistical support in the field were inherited by the Government. However, the Opposition have tried to tell us that they had a strategy for building capability within NATO. I am privileged to have a role in the NATO parliamentary assembly, as have other Members in the Chamber, and it is my belief that there is no conflict between the goals of a European security and defence policy and a commitment to NATO as the first line of defence for Europe—that is as long as it is done properly and as long as the necessary capabilities are produced. That is the key.
We are not talking of duplicated defence capabilities. They are not even capabilities in most other European countries except the UK. They are not even capabilities that exist now. Anything that we can do to build defence capabilities in other European Union countries will enhance our contribution to NATO and will strengthen NATO. That was the lesson of Kosovo.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on his presentation. We have had a defence strategy and policy for three and a half years. Three weeks ago, I was in Copenhagen attending a Rose-Roth seminar of the NATO parliamentary assembly. I was delighted to hear the Minister of Defence of Denmark paying tribute to the British strategic defence review and our contribution to defence. It was a seminar on security in northern Europe and the contribution to defence in Europe. The Minister specifically paid tribute to the role of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the St. Malo accord. He recognised, as we all should, that it is inconceivable that there should be the development of a European security and defence policy without Britain taking a lead role.
It is inconceivable that the policy should be left to the French, the Germans or anyone else. It is right that we should play a leading role. We have the forces to contribute; we have the experience and professionalism;
764
and most important of all we have a reputation throughout Europe and the whole of NATO for excellence in military matters and military service. It is right that a British Prime Minister should exploit that to the full. He has done that, and there will be a British stamp on any European security and defence policy.
I agree that we must get the policy right. We must provide a mechanism for decision making that does not exclude NATO members, especially the non-European countries. I understand that that is precisely the issue that is now being addressed. I believe that there is already a commitment to involve all NATO countries, whether members of the European Union or not, in the crucial early stages of any decision-making process. The right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife talked about giving NATO first refusal. I believe that, given NATO command structures and the massive military technology gap between north America and Europe, it is inconceivable that NATO will not have the first option in any Petersberg-type missions.
I believe that the Government's defence policy has been excellent—although not perfect, because there are problems. The review addressed the real and changing security threats that we face in the world. The real challenge is not to come up with a first-class review, but to ensure that it is implemented in full.
Mr. Hancock: The hon. Gentleman asked my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) about the elections in Kosovo. I would be interested to know what the hon. Gentleman thinks about those election results, and whether he believes that they lessen or increase the tension in the area.
Mr. Smith: I am greatly encouraged by those elections. A conflict or a war invariably results in the complete breakdown of civil society and order. Those elections signal a return to normality and to moderate politics in that part of the world. I hope that I am proved right about that, although it is not an exact science.
The Government have an excellent record on defence policy. Even though the review was claimed to be policy-led, there was huge criticism and people asked where the foreign policy guidelines were. The reality is that we were the first NATO member country to anticipate the changing security role and security environment in the world, and we were the first to begin to reconfigure our forces in readiness for that changed role and for the greater emphasis being placed on out-of-area, non-article 5 activity and humanitarian and crisis missions.
This is the first defence debate since the announcement of the outcome of the comprehensive spending review. I am delighted that the Government have had the courage to stop the constant cuts in the defence budget and to recognise that the challenges we now face require more defence expenditure, not less. The threats are much less predictable than they were before, and our ability to respond flexibly and with speed needs to be much greater.
There is a good story to tell. The work of defence is changing and has changed dramatically in the past few years from the security of our domestic territory to a role policing human rights, providing humanitarian relief and avoiding conflict and war, not engaging in it or creating it. We should try to get that message across more often to engender greater public support for the superb role of our

765
defence forces in the changing environment. We should do that throughout Europe in countries that are cutting their defence budgets even more than the previous UK Government—although that is hard to imagine. They cut it by 32 per cent. in real terms after the end of the cold war. That dangerous cut left us widely exposed. Thankfully, we are now starting to shore up those budgets again.
Anything that will help our European partners to persuade their respective populations that there is a good case for increasing their defence expenditure to meet their NATO capabilities first and their ESDP capabilities second must be a damn good thing, and I would support it. Anyone who has the true interests of the defence of this nation and peace in the rest of the world at heart must recognise that challenge. It is a great pity that members of the once great Conservative party are always bashing Europe.
I should like to draw the House's attention to a couple of matters of great concern that affect my constituents. One of the objectives of the strategic defence review was to provide much more jointery and tri-service provision to cut out waste and duplication, and to create smart procurement. An important part of that strategy was the creation of the Defence Aviation Repair Agency, which I am delighted to say has its headquarters in my constituency. It has about 4,800 civilian and military personnel. It used to be a 4:1 ratio of military to civilian personnel, but that has now been reversed: there are about 800 military staff and 4,000 civilian.
It has come to my notice in the past week that there is great concern among employees at DARA headquarters in RAF St. Athan that there could be a relocation of the aero-engine maintenance and repair facility at St. Athan to the south of England, to Fleetlands in Gosport. I draw that to the attention of my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench. I do not know whether a decision has been taken: I can only express the concern of many DARA employees.
My concern is not so much about the numbers of jobs involved—although it could be as many as 200 highly skilled and, for the south Wales region, relatively highly paid jobs—but about the nature of the jobs that we may lose not just in my constituency but in the south Wales area. I recognise the role of the new agency, which will become a fundholder—I am not sure whether it is one yet—and will be a stand-alone body, based on the commercial imperative. However, it spends public money and should be publicly accountable.
I hope that full consideration will be given to the decision and its possible impact, particularly on the aviation industry in south Wales, which hon. Members may be surprised to hear is a very large and successful industry. Once gone, highly specialised aviation jobs are gone for ever. The cost of recruiting and training such numbers is so great that it is impossible to get those jobs back. We have not only a thriving defence aviation industry in south Wales, but a thriving commercial aviation industry, of which repair and maintenance of engines is a major part.
There has been a link—a synergy—between the private and the public sector in the aviation industry, in respect of not just engines, but airframes as well. I am fearful of the impact that the decision will have on the commercial jobs in the area could result in the disappearance of the
766
critical mass of skills necessary to maintain a successful industry. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will have an opportunity to look into that and perhaps comment on it at the end of the debate. I fear that the impact on the entire industry in south Wales could be devastating, and I should like my fears removed, if possible.
I want an assessment to be undertaken into the possible impact of such a decision, if indeed such a decision is to be taken. I also seek an assurance about the future of RAF St. Athan and the area as the headquarters of DARA and the providers of excellent services in airframe maintenance and repair. I hope that that will expand as DARA develops and possibly starts to attract military tri-service aviation work not just for UK plc, but for countries abroad. I seek assurances on the future of DARA in my constituency.
Finally, and regrettably, I must return to a topic that I first raised in the House on 13 April, in the previous defence debate. An aspect of service personnel welfare about which I am deeply worried is the provision of married quarters and the role of the Defence Housing Executive and Annington Homes. My local experience tells me that we have not got it right.
It saddens me to have to raise the matter again. In the previous debate, I mentioned the case of Mrs. Colette Howard, from my constituency, whose husband Corporal Howard has served 19 years in the Royal Air Force and is coming up to retirement. I drew the attention of the House to the fact that that poor family, on a single posting at the RAF station, had not been moved the usual once, but three times. For most of us, moving house is a traumatic experience, but service personnel must learn to live with it. They often have to move lock, stock and barrel on every company posting, and we all know how stressful that can be.
I reported to the House that Mr. and Mrs. Howard had been asked to move three times on a single posting, and I am pleased that following the intervention of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, they received a letter of apology from the DHE and were eventually offered accommodation that was far more suitable than the accommodation originally presented to them.
Believe it or not, since that intervention the Howards have been asked to move again. Even worse and even more harrowing is the fact that in the meantime, Corporal Howard has suffered a heart condition, which is almost certainly related to the stress to which he has been subjected as a result of the activities of the Defence Housing Executive.
This is not an isolated incident. A number of service wives have come to me about the housing situation at RAF St. Athan, as they usually bear the brunt of it and have to put up with it. Judging from our local experience, I suspect that the problem is widespread throughout the country.
Unprecedentedly, senior officers of the camp have approached me. That has never been known before. They expressed to me their concern that the camaraderie among the officer cadre is being undermined because of the way in which officers below the rank of wing commander are being treated with regard to accommodation for their wives and families. Their experience reads like a horror story. They have been moved repeatedly during a two-year tour and served with eviction notices while they were away on holiday with their families. All that is creating a great problem of morale in the camp.

767
I am an ex-service man. I met and married my wife in the services, and I am aware of the pressures that can be placed on families in service life. There is a great myth that those in the uniformed disciplined services have no right of redress, and that when some injustice is done to them or their families, they cannot get anything done about it. Of course, anyone who has had service experience knows that nothing could be further from the truth.
If I had a problem when I was a service man, I could go to my station warrant officer and explain that it was creating hardship. I could go to the commanding officer, or indeed to the old personnel flight, which I think is still in existence, and good luck to it. They would all intervene and assist in matters such as housing, schooling, pressures on the family and postings. However, with regard to married quarters, that option no longer exists.
The problem must be addressed quickly by the Ministry of Defence. There is no redress or recourse for service personnel being dealt with in such a despicable way. They can go to their personnel flight or their commanding officer, as they have all done, and the commanding officer can go to the Defence Housing Executive, but the commanding officer has no authority over the DHE, which is dependent on the leasing policy of Annington Homes. The situation is a mish-mash.
All those who have spoken in the debate have paid tribute to our service personnel for the fine work that they are doing throughout the world and at home. It is unacceptable that their families should be treated in that way. I do not pretend to know the answer, but I offer a suggestion. Officers and other ranks living in married quarters and trying to raise their families, with enough pressure coming from service life anyway, have no recourse and no redress, as they should have. We should consider creating as soon as possible some sort of organisation. I am reluctant to use the term tenants association, but we should set up a military equivalent because nobody is listening or taking action, and I am not prepared to sit back and watch my constituents forced into ill health for serving their country. I hope that my hon. Friends will consider the matter.
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak briefly in the debate. In conclusion, I pay tribute to the excellent work of the service men and women of this country.
7 pm
Sir Peter Emery: A view that used to be held in the House, and to which I subscribe, was that a debate should be a debate, and not simply the delivery of several prepared speeches. I therefore compliment my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith), who opened the debate for the Conservative party, on the way in which he outlined beyond peradventure the Prime Minister's volte face on some European defence matters. People can change their minds, but such changes should be brought out in the open. My hon. Friend did that admirably.
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) has left. I wished to pay tribute to him, because I do not know how many hon. Members realise that it was the hon. Gentleman who, in the North Atlantic Assembly 12 or 14 years ago, began the battle to ban
768
land mines. He persuaded Canada to move on the matter, and this country and Europe to support the proposal. He deserves much praise for that.
I support one of the points that the hon. Member for Stockton, North made today. Ministers should reconsider the decision to abandon the royal tournament, and they should re-establish the Aldershot tattoo, if my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) will allow it. They were marvellous events during which the young people of this country could learn something about the military forces. Seeing what the different branches of the military were able to achieve in those presentations was a significant recruiting factor for many people.
The right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) carries the British banner in the North Atlantic Assembly with great credit. However, I disagreed with some of his remarks about Sierra Leone today. Our involvement there is becoming deeper and deeper because of the number of military personnel that we have to put in to support the civil Government. I am worried about that. The United Nations does not appear to take the matter nearly as seriously as the Foreign Secretary. We must be wary of that.
The right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife also mentioned Kosovo, in relation to which I must declare a personal interest. My wife is the British chairman of International Social Services, which is a charity that works for the unification of broken families. She has recently been to Kosovo, where the organisation was establishing a unit in Pristina to deal with the many thousands of children who are left without families. She said that it was all very well for the members of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs when they visited Kosovo—they are met and looked after, and receive food and accommodation—but that going there as a single lady with the secretary general of the ISS was different. None of those amenities was provided.
My wife said that I ought to point out in the House that the co-ordination of the different military personnel to maintain law and order left much to be desired—indeed, was almost non-existent. She said that the idea that United Nations personnel were in control there was a myth. The United Nations side of operations is not a matter for the Ministry of Defence. However, it might examine the co-ordination between the different military forces.
The hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Smith) spent much time trying to belittle the Conservative Government's work on defence. I remind him that the great success of NATO, which everyone now claims to be marvellous, was a massive part of the Conservative Government's work on defence. That work consisted of keeping 50,000 men in Germany and dealing with the unrest and difficulties that arose in relation to atomic weapons. The Conservative Government had to carry out those tasks to ensure that NATO became the success that it is.
Mr. Gerald Howarth: My right hon. Friend has made an extremely important point. Will he remind the House that we took that principled stand in the teeth of wholesale opposition from the Labour party, then in opposition, which opposed all our actions to secure NATO, protect our borders and ensure the ultimate defeat of communism?
Sir Peter Emery: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, but I was trying not to raise the temperature. I want to get to the main part of my speech.

769
The collapse of the Berlin wall, the end of the Russian-American stand-off and the proven success of NATO has largely rendered obsolete the traditional categories into which the fear of world war had previously thrust us. The old traditional distinctions between east and west no longer apply. Nowadays, we have to look around us and ask, "Who and where is the foe?"
NATO has made great strides in modernising itself. Thank goodness that America and Canada have accepted the need to remain an integral part of NATO. None the less, important questions remain unaltered and unanswered. How far should NATO extend its tentacles? How can Russia be included, so that it can share and participate in the defence of freedom now that it is stretching out to embrace democracy and human rights? At what point will the role of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe begin to impinge on defence matters, as Russia would wish? What is new for the House to consider?
The Government have taken positive action to create a European security and defence initiative. It would seem reasonable, in time, for Europe not to have to call on the United States for everything to do with defence or security in Europe. We must accept that the United States has been calling for Europe to pick up more of the bill for the defence of Europe. However, I stress with all my strength that the ESDI must not detract from the role of and need for NATO.
Let us presume, for argument's sake, that the ESDI is a good thing. It may well be—we shall have to wait and see. Nevertheless, some major questions arise. Would there be an equal contribution to a rapid reaction force of 60,000 men—20,000 from Britain, 20,000 from France and 20,000 from Germany? Will Britain, or France and Britain, be called on to provide a larger share of manpower, with Germany falling behind? Is that not likely, in view of the current problems in Germany on defence matters, and the deployment of German troops overseas?
What about the cost? Is there again to be an equal share for the United Kingdom, France and Germany? May that not become difficult, given that France and Germany are experiencing major cuts in defence expenditure? As British military manpower is already stretched, will we not require more recruits? Will this not require more expenditure which cannot be met within the present defence review targets?
Let me return to a question that I asked the Secretary of State during Defence questions on Monday. Whence will come the heavy lift potential to move 60,000 men, all the equipment—arms, ammunition, victuals and transport—and the back-up for the force? If the arrangements are to be independent of NATO, and are not to deplete our reserves and manpower for our present vast commitments, there must surely be an increase in Army manpower. There will also be a greater need for heavy transportation and lift to enable the Royal Air Force, where it is a strategic necessity, to meet our present commitments.
These plans were established, after a vast amount of heart-searching in the defence review, as a strategic retirement, long before the ESDI was anywhere near being a realistic concept. How many more men and how much more money will be involved? Where is the heavy
770
lift to come from, if we are not to deplete our existing requirements? Do we expect France and Germany to purchase C17s and A400Ms?
I visited Paris last week with the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs. We interviewed French Members of Parliament, including Mr. Vedrine, the Foreign Affairs Minister, and Mr. Richard, the Defence Minister. With Mr. Richard were a number of very senior French officers. In discussion, I raised the matter of acquiring the lift capacity for the rapid reaction force in relation to France. Mr. Richard's response was that "they must not have to rely for long on American lift capacity".
A three-star French general and I left the meeting together. I asked, "Independent lift capacity, in 10 years?" There came the rather depressed reply, "Mon ami, quinze ans"—15 years. If that is the thinking of some of the French military, we should take note of it.
In the context of all the planning for the new defence initiative, let me say something about the deteriorating role of the Western European Union. I understand that it is accepted that the WEU will become surplus to requirements. Will the Minister confirm that? If it is the case, will he tell us what will become of, or be done with, the WEU parliamentary assembly? Will it somehow be merged with the NATO parliamentary assembly? If not, will it become a Committee, and organise part of the working of the European Parliament or the European Union—or will it just wither on the vine? The House deserves to hear the Government's thoughts. Many people are concerned, and many employees—considerable manpower is involved—deserve to know where their future lies.
How is it envisaged that the new initiative will operate as far as the United Nations is concerned? It is expected to be a means of rapid reaction. If that signifies anything, the words themselves define it: its function will be to respond rapidly to sudden instances of major unrest or revolt, or sudden conflict. Will the force mark time until politicians have secured general agreement—whether in Brussels, or from the United Nations in New York—that it may proceed? What if a veto is introduced, to turn rapid reaction into no reaction at all? Does not the very existence of the triumvirate of France, Germany and Great Britain lead one to suspect that the agreed political decisions will be made by those three powers, probably with the acquiescence of the United States—and that all that will be necessary just to launch the rapid reaction force? Moreover, when it has been launched, the nations Prime Ministers will have to consider how to get their action endorsed by the United Nations. Is that really how control of the rapid reaction force will operate? We have not been told, and I think that we need to be told before we go much further.
Publicly, Russia has strongly opposed, and still opposes, the enlargement of NATO. Rightly or wrongly, it sees that enlargement as a major threat to its borders, to its influence, and to the safety of the motherland. Let us be under no misapprehension: although Russia may move towards working for friendship with certain nations of the west, at no time will the objective be other than to regain its position as a major power to equal, or combat, the influence of the United States.
Russia will wish to weaken NATO. It will seek, by subterfuge of one sort or another, to acquire the most up-to-date technology and knowledge of modern

771
weaponry, contrary to the wishes of the west and the manufacturing companies that have been spied on or defrauded of their property. We need only read the papers published recently by Mr. Mitrokhin to know that Russia has constantly tried to obtain secrets about confidential manufacturing plans through subversion and spying. That is going on even today.
However, while we know that it is going on, surely we need to find ways of ensuring that Russia can be enticed into working with us to defuse potential difficulties. It is possible to work—somewhat—together to enhance democratic institutions and the protection of human rights. That is not always the case, but we must strive to ensure that it happens more often. Russia's role in Yugoslavia, and in the Kosovo crisis, illustrates the need. But we must also obtain a positive policy from Government—a policy that Russia can understand, that is not contrary to the views of our close allies, and that can be increasingly understood and, we hope, enhanced by Russia.
The parliamentary assembly of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe may well be used to that end. The three "baskets" working in the OSCE are represented by the assembly's three Committees—on Political Affairs and Security, on Economic Affairs, Environment and Science, and on Human Rights and Humanitarian Questions.
The Russian delegations have made no secret of the fact that they do not want the first Committee, in considering security, to interpret "security" as merely domestic or internal security, as it does now. They want its remit widened, so that it can consider defence matters. Would it be possible to extend the remit somewhat without turning part of the OSCE into an anti-NATO structure? Should we not be considering that? After all, Russia sees the OSCE in an entirely different light, given that it is a founder member, rather than being invited as a supplicant to the NATO assembly or the Council of Europe.
Could not "security" be extended to the safeguarding of existing national borders? That could well stand a chance of overcoming the Russian aversion to NATO. Is it too absurd to consider Russia's being able, whenever it wished, to opt into a rapid reaction force against revolution or military unrest? After all, we are working with Russia in Bosnia and Kosovo. Could not areas of mutual defence become the leading edge of closer Russian co-operation with the west? Such thinking is not too advanced or too lateral. We need to strengthen, not weaken, our relations with the "Great Bear" while we still understand what that nation can be up to.
My remarks have entailed a vast number of questions and a few original ideas. Will the Minister, in winding up, please give the House detailed answers on the European defence initiative involving the French and German commitments to finance and obtain the heavy lift capability necessary for the forces of the European defence initiative? What will be the necessary increase in British manpower to ensure that our commitments can be met without depleting existing commitments? What is the future of the WEU assembly? What is the Government's view of the new thinking on Russia's role in the OSCE? If I receive some answers to those questions, this debate will have been worth while.
7.21 pm
Mr. Andrew Robathan: I fear that I shall not be the last hon. Member to apologise for not attending tomorrow's debate. I am afraid that I have a long-standing constituency engagement, for which I had requested leave to attend assuming that we would be on a three-line whip. I now discover that the debate arises on a motion for the Adjournment, but nevertheless, I fear that I shall not be in the Chamber for tomorrow's debate.
I shall first deal with the various parts of the world about which questions need to be asked. My hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) referred to Sierra Leone. On Monday, the Defence Secretary said that our presence in Sierra Leone was intended purely for training, and the Minister will support that view. However, our presence in Sierra Leone is at least questionable. Of course we wish a legitimate Government to be supported in Sierra Leone, but there are failures in the Government's policy.
The so-called ethical foreign policy led to the abandonment of Commissioner Penfold's proposals to support President Kabbah in 1998, because of which enormous numbers of people have had their limbs lopped off or have been killed as a result of the Revolutionary United Front's activities. We seem to be sitting in Sierra Leone without a clear purpose for our being there. We are training its armed forces, but there are question marks about some of the people that we are training. I fear that we are becoming a sitting duck.
If the British armed forces, with United Nations support, wish to defeat the RUF, perhaps they should do so. I might support that, but we now have people sitting there with no clear purpose. Training is not enough, because there is no evidence that training the Sierra Leonean armed forces will lead to their victory over the various rebel groups. The Minister should tell the House—and, indeed, the people of this country and the armed forces—how many troops are expected to remain in Sierra Leone and for how long. On Monday, we heard that a task force will visit the area in the near future.
Our policy in Zimbabwe is closely linked to that in Sierra Leone. We were told on Monday that we had to support the Government of Sierra Leone—a friendly Commonwealth country. We are supporting the Government of Zimbabwe with a British Army training team. Although it is a regional team, it is based in Harare and has trained the Zimbabwean army. The Zimbabwean army is mostly not evicting white farmers, many of whom may have British nationality, from their farms; it is not beating up people on the white farms. There have been dreadful cases of black workers being burnt alive and the like. It is actually fighting in the Congo, supporting the misguided—to put it mildly—policies of the Zimbabwean Government and lining the pockets of various senior members of the Zimbabwean Administration. It cannot be right that British Army personnel are seen to support—irrespective of whether they actually do so—the Zimbabwean Administration, which have, frankly, put themselves beyond the pale.
The situation in Bosnia is closely linked to my previous point about Sierra Leone. I am well aware that the position in Bosnia and the Balkans is extremely complicated, but we first sent troops into Bosnia in November 1992—now eight years ago—when the situation was ghastly and it has been very confused ever

773
since. We have sent troops into Kosovo, but the British Army and the rest of the armed forces, which are heavily overstretched, need to know how long that commitment will last. Is it open-ended? It was not in 1992, but I fully accept that that was under the previous Administration. If it is not open-ended, when will it end?
There have been tremendous changes in the Balkans, including elections in Serbia and Croatia and, indeed, in Kosovo over the weekend, but we must consider how long to keep British troops in those places when they are often not doing quite as much good as they might be. I pay tribute to all those working there, but it must be depressing for those who were there in 1992 to return in 2000. They must wonder what has been achieved by keeping British forces there—a lot of good, of course, but the situation remains difficult. We owe it to our soldiers to say how long we expect them to remain in those areas and until which conditions prevail.
Another part of the world which I should like to mention is Belize, which I know well because I spent six months there during the Falklands crisis. We used to have a battalion there. The previous Government, as I am sure that the Minister will remind us, withdrew the battalion, much to the consternation of the Belizean Government. I recently met the Belizean high commissioner and also the Belizean Prime Minister when he visited the House in the summer. They are concerned about the support that the British Government will give to the territorial integrity of Belize. There used to be no doubt about that; we kept forces there to guarantee its territorial integrity. I understand that that guarantee has lapsed. If it has not, and if we will guarantee its territorial integrity with armed force, I should be grateful if the Minister would say so. That is a serious point. I understand that it is also a matter for the Foreign Office, but the Belizean Government are concerned about the matter of armed support.
The Guatemalan Government claim part of Belize for historic reasons with which we have never agreed. They used to claim it all, but they now only want part of it. We owe Belize—a former colony and member of the Commonwealth—our support. We should say that we will back up the Belizean Government if necessary, because the threat of backing them up has worked in the past against the Guatemalans. I do not know what the Guatemalan Government are like now, but its Governments tend to be unstable. I was in the area during the Falklands crisis and know that the Guatemalan Government were pretty unpleasant. When the Falklands were invaded in 1982, a lot of sabre rattling went on in Guatemala. Its Government said that they would invade Belize and there were demonstrations in the streets. When the task force sailed, everything went quiet. When the task force landed and succeeded, the Guatemalans went away quietly and did not bother us for the rest of my stay in Belize.
I should like to deal with the state of the armed forces. As always, we have heard tributes to the excellent armed forces personnel. Of course, I should like to reinforce those tributes, but I regularly speak to friends, past colleagues, in the armed forces and I can assure hon. Members that they feel rather beleaguered. My first point is about recruitment. The Minister will confirm that the Army is 6,000 personnel under strength. I understand that, according to Jane's defence publications, an army is defined as trained force more than 100,000 strong.
774
Perhaps the Minister will correct me if I am wrong, but the Army has now dropped below that strength and, therefore, is technically seen as a defence force.
Although it is a serious problem throughout the armed forces, I should like to home in on Army officer recruitment. Earlier this year, the Minister announced that the target figure of 770 officer cadets had not been met and only 646 officer cadets entered Sandhurst, and that the passing out target figure of 620 trained officers had not been met and only 534 passed out in the previous financial year. If that is the case, that will, as the Minister will know, have a long-term knock-on consequence, which he and, indeed, the Government need to address.
We need to look at why that is so, and one reason among many is pay. I am not arguing for an increase in pay for the armed forces, although I am sure that it would be welcome and I would be delighted to support such an increase if it came along.
Mr. Spellar: Another spending commitment.
Mr. Robathan: I am not arguing for that, as I said.
We need to realise that young men and women do not join the armed forces for financial reward, but they expect financial remuneration—that is fair enough, for heaven's sake. A graduate joining the Army now would get £21,000 a year, which is not bad for a person straight out of university. However, eight to 10 years later, as a captain, he would earn only about £31,000 a year. That is not bad pay either, but, if we want high quality people in the Army and the rest of the armed forces, we need to consider how to reward them.
I know many people in their early 20s who are earning considerably more in the professions and the City. Perhaps one might say that the City distorts the job market—I might applaud that, but those employed in it are certainly earning a lot of money. The pool of high quality people coming out of university and going into the armed forces is shrinking and part of the reason is pay. I know of various instances of that, and people to whom I have spoken have said that the rewards were so great outside the armed forces that they went elsewhere instead.
A greater part of the problem with recruitment and, particularly perhaps, retention is the political correctness of Government policy. I have mentioned it before. I know that there will be hoots of derision from the Minister—indeed, here comes one.
Mr. Spellar: Garbage.
Mr. Robathan: Perhaps instead of wandering around not listening to what members of the armed forces say when he visits establishments—I know that he does wander around and visit them—he should listen carefully to what they say and try to engage them in conversation. He should not expect them to do the great old military thing and to say, "Yes, Sir." Many of them are willing to talk.
A gradual erosion, a gradual undermining, of the armed forces ethos is contributing to people leaving the services. Again, I know that to be true. I accept that the sky will not fall in because of the new policy on homosexuals in the armed forces—there have always been homosexuals in the armed forces. That is not the point. The point is that, gradually, the whole ethos of the forces is being undermined.

775
I should like the Minister to comment on and to reaffirm what the Secretary of State for Defence said:
homosexual couples will not have rights or access to service quarters because they will not be married and will not therefore be treated any differently from other unmarried couples.—[Official Report, 12 January 2000; Vol. 342, c. 297]
It is quite straightforward—until one reads The Sunday Times from last weekend:
Army welcomes boyfriend of openly gay officer.
The boyfriend of the first openly gay officer in the Royal Navy has been accepted as the equivalent of a naval wife.
I do not believe everything that I read in the newspapers, but it would be helpful if the Minister responded to that report.
Mr. Robert Key: I must reinforce what my hon. Friend says. The Army has changed the name of its quarters. We no longer have Army married quarters; we have Army families accommodation.
Mr. Robathan: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. That underlines the point that we are moving in a direction that causes concerns to many people. I freely admit that the sky will not fall in as a result of those changes, but they are undermining the purpose and existence of the armed forces.
Much more important than the question of homosexuals within the armed forces, the argument over which has been lost and given away, is the report in The Mail on Sunday—I am sure that the Minister saw it—which said:
Defence chief under siege by Colonel Muppet.
which I thought was a rather rude comment. The article refers, however, to a serious point. The Minister says "Garbage" about what I might say, but he should comment on the words of the supporter of the Chief of the Defence Staff, General Guthrie. He was quoted as saying; these quotes have a terrible tendency to be incredibly accurate, as the Minister is aware:
He—
Guthrie—
believes that the erosion of the effectiveness of the armed forces for political reasons is the biggest crisis facing the military. He fears he is being driven down the road of having to accept women and the disabled in every position.
His job is to deliver a fighting force made up of people who have to kill or be killed and not worry about the comrade on either side who can't really cope. He can't do that if politicians take control from military chiefs in deciding who is allowed to serve.
If the Minister says that that is complete garbage—again, to use his own term—or if he is, like the Secretary of State, about to say that senior military officers make their own decisions and have no political pressure put on them, I look forward to hearing that.
The crux is the physical abilities of men and women and whether allowing women on the front line and in the infantry would lower standards. It must inevitably be a somewhat subjective judgment, but I assure the Minister that any such decision would also contribute to undermining the ability of the infantry to do its task because it would fundamentally alter its capabilities. Members of the infantry are not misogynists—no more
776
than me, I should say—but we do not want the point, the standards and purpose of the armed forces to be undermined.
The problem is that we have forgotten in this place and perhaps throughout too much of society what real war is about. We should ask our fathers generation. I believe that I am right in saying that my right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Sir P. Emery) served during the war. There are very few here who did, but may I refer the Minister to the obituaries in many newspapers, particularly The Daily Telegraph—which I read, although he may not be such an avid reader of it—of the second world war generation, which is disappearing? It is important to understand what that generation saw and what happened to them. It was not some nice peace time parade ground.
Mr. Spellar: I will come to the main part of the hon. Gentleman's case when I reply, but may I pose the question: does he think that the surface fleet is no longer effective?
Mr. Robathan: As I said, the sky will not fall in because of the proposed changes—it is a gradual process. I suggest that he talks to people in the surface fleet who practise fire-fighting drills, as I have done. Perhaps they will tell him the answer, as they told me, or perhaps they will be a bit more deferential. Perhaps if he talks to them for long enough he will discover the facts. They say that, when they practise fire-fighting drills—he will know that they have to close bulkheads and whatever and drag bodies—it is very difficult because it is strong physical work. Unfortunately, many of the excellent women who are serving on royal naval ships are not able to do that strong, physical work, so the men have to come to the fore. That is fact. It is not my fantasy. It is self-evident and common sense.
As we pursue the agenda that is alleged in the newspapers of putting women on the front line, we should consider the Israeli experiment. The Israelis, as I understand it, are moving away from having women on the front line because of all the problems, which have been explained, but particularly because there is enormous difficulty with the strength and physical capabilities of women. It is not misogynistic to say so; it is self-evident. Women tend to be frailer, perhaps to be smaller in physical stature and to be less strong than men. That is not a criticism. It is a fact, which is why we have Olympic men's sports and women's sports. It is pretty straightforward.
The problem is not just that we have forgotten what real war is about, but that far too many Members on the Government Benches see the armed forces almost as an affront to so-called modernising Britain. They see the armed forces as the forces of conservatism, to coin a phrase—old fashioned, elitist and traditional. They are old fashioned, elitist and traditional, and they are the envy of the world. It is not just that they dress up in red coats—they are chinless wonders, to coin another phrase—although they do, are very good at it and are much admired throughout the world in terms of ceremonial duties. It is not just that they are excellent peacekeepers and admired in Kosovo, Sierra Leone, Bosnia—wherever one would like to mention—although they are very good at that, too. They are there to defend this country. That is their primary purpose, which is old fashioned and traditional.

777
The fact is that soldiers in the infantry have to kill with bayonets. They have to kill or be killed. Bayonet drill is still undertaken. I do not know how many Government Members have tried it, but it is pretty unpleasant. Indeed, if one thinks about its purpose, it is extremely unpleasant—as is being blown up. One needs to read the obituaries of people whose friends were blown up all around them and survived the most desperate deprivations during the second world war to understand what real war is about. God willing, we shall never return to that, but we must accept that one day we may, which is why we have armed forces.
Many of my former colleagues, some of whom have recently left the Army, say that the Human Rights Act 1998 has undermined discipline. Discipline is a tremendous strength of the armed forces, and is one reason why we are so admired by fellow European countries. However, it is under threat from the Human Rights Act, the introduction of which is not sustainable in war or operations. In peace time, when the Army is in barracks, the Human Rights Act does not matter that much, but it will matter if we go to war. For instance, a commanding officer used to be able to lock someone up. As the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Smith) said, there was always a right of redress if things went wrong.
The Minister will correct me if I am wrong, but a commanding officer is now allowed to keep someone in custody for more than 48 hours only if he has a decision from a judicial officer. That has not happened very often, but I shall give an example of when it has. In Germany, a commanding officer found a drug dealer—not a user—peddling drugs in the barracks, and locked him up and put him in custody prior to trial by court martial or, if necessary, the civil authority. After 48 hours, a decision from the judicial officer was needed. Although it is hearsay, as I have not spoken to the people involved, the drug dealer was released by the judicial officer. He was not just confined to barracks, but was released and was able to go home. That is bizarre, especially as it is unlikely that that would have happened in a civilian court. The Minister may correct me on the details, which I have on hearsay. However, it is worrying that such hearsay is doing the rounds of the Army. What message does that send about discipline? It sends the message that justice is not being served. Discipline matters in peace, but is essential in war. Before the Minister rubbishes me on the matter of the Human Rights Act, perhaps he will tell me what representations, if any, he has had from the armed forces.
My penultimate point is a minor one that was made in Defence questions on Monday, and concerns the possible use of Army drivers in any subsequent fuel crisis. Of course, it is the Government's right to use Government servants as they wish in the pursuit of their policy. However, about 80 per cent. of the British public consider that the fuel protesters have a point, which is in contrast to past strikes, such as the firemen's strike, when drivers from the armed forces were used. I do not criticise the Government for wanting to use the armed forces, but they should be wary. Many of us would be saddened if, by using Army or other forces drivers, the Government put the armed forces in confrontation with the public. The armed forces in this country have not been in that position for many years and on those occasions when they were, such as at Peterloo, have gone down in history.
778
Finally, Remembrance day is soon, and most Members are wearing poppies. We owe it to all those whom we will remember, honour and respect a week on Sunday to ensure that we do not let our guard in the Army and armed forces drop.
7.43 pm
Mr. Brian Jenkins: It is a pleasure to take part in our debate, and especially to follow the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan), an ex-service man who brings with him experience, and recent news and information.
I looked at the section on procurement in the review, in relation to which my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Smith) brought up the subject of industry. I am pleased that smart procurement is projected to save us billions of pounds, as we need that money to spend elsewhere. I am also pleased that we are going to provide equipment for our armed forces, as they deserve the best equipment that money can buy. I have said for years that I never want to be in the position of knocking at a door and telling parents that their son or daughter has been lost because we asked him or her to do a job, but did not provide the right equipment. It is our duty to provide the forces with the right equipment. Tanks, attack helicopters and frigates are vital to fight a war, but the best piece of equipment that we have in any peacekeeping role is a professionally trained soldier with a rifle, which, very often, has a bayonet fixed on the end.
How often have soldiers been in situations of conflict in which people know that they can have confidence in them? Unfortunately, although we have increased the number of soldiers by 3,500, that increase is only on paper, because, as the hon. Member for Blaby said, the numbers are short, there are gaps in the ranks and we are finding it difficult to recruit. I do not follow the hon. Gentleman's line on why recruiting is difficult; I see a different scenario. I used to have a barracks in my constituency, but a boundary change meant that I lost it. Before that happened, I dealt with several cases at the barracks involving families who were leaving the Army because of the redundancies that resulted from the previous Government's cuts. Those people were in married quarters, and to get housed, they had to be evicted. The last piece of paper that the Army gave them was a bill for court costs of £134. Some of them had served in the Army for 13 or 15 years, but left with a bitter taste in their mouths. How could they recommend a career in the forces?
I am of the generation that was the last to do national service. My son and his family have no connection at all with the military; there is a generation today that cannot pass on any information about what a life in the military is like to their children who may be considering that avenue. Army recruiting teams have had a difficult time getting into schools.
I welcome the improved welfare conditions that the Government have introduced, including common leave allowance, which means that all ranks get 30 days, and guaranteed post-operational leave, which is vital and means that personnel can go back to their families and re-establish links. The Government have also improved the separated service allowance and personnel can get £2,000, although to qualify they have to spend any 365 days in a two-year period away from their families. However, they will get two

779
bonuses for the price of one. There are also more free telephone calls—personnel get 20 minutes a week instead of three. There are more flexible concessionary travel entitlements, better pay, better access to dentists and, as a result of the £140 million, better access to medical treatment. We are starting to reverse the decline in the employment of doctors and nurses that the previous Government imposed.
We have also established a veterans advice unit, so when our veterans leave the Army they are guided back into civilian life.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) said, the Government are investigating Gulf war veterans illness, and have doubled the money spent on it, but we have not dealt with the case of the nuclear test veterans. The American, Australian and Canadian Governments, who are our allies, looked after their nuclear test veterans while they were on active service, but we have yet to look after ours. I hope that the Government will reconsider their position on the issue, which needs to be worked on.
Personnel are a vital part of our military force. People who go into the Army are trained to become professional soldiers. More than that, however, the Army is a modern operational force and, although not many people know it, young people can be trained and gain qualifications that are acceptable in civilian life. They come out with nationally recognised qualifications of the highest level. Very few employers, schools or colleges know that, but we should point it out to them. I am afraid that we have distanced ourselves from our forces.
Much of today's debate has dwelt on Britain's role in NATO and in Europe. Although I do not want to repeat other hon. Members' speeches, I hope that Ministers will keep one thing in mind. As we know, NATO was formed at the end of the second world war to deal with contemporary conditions, and its defensive forces were established to meet a common enemy and to fight on Europe's level plains. We saw just how difficult it was to fight on different terrain in Kosovo.
We, and our allies in Europe, have to stand on our own two feet. Anyone who has read Governor Bush's comments will have no doubt that if he is successful in the presidential election, he will remove American forces from Kosovo and then start to withdraw American funding for Europe's defence. He believes that Europe should pay more for its own defence. Our European allies will have to face up to the fact that defence does not come cheap, and start to match Britain's defence contributions. However, if we are going to work effectively with our allies, it is no use duplicating one another's efforts; we have to try to co-ordinate those efforts.
There may also come a time when we have to act only in Europe's interests, which may not coincide with America's interests. We can never be seen simply as America's poodle.
Mr. Robathan: The hon. Gentleman is quite right that our interests may not always coincide with those of America. However, is he absolutely confident that our interests will always coincide with those of our European partners?
Mr. Jenkins: I have never been absolutely confident about anything in the future—I never say never, and I try
780
never to say no. There will of course be occasions on which we may have differences with other European Union member states. We would have extreme difficulties if a European army were established and the decision were made to send it into a member state. I therefore do not believe that a European army will be established.

I think it is likely that the forces of European Union member states will be combined to participate in agreed operations. However, the command structure for the combined EU forces will be totally different from that used by NATO. As hon. Members will be aware, when NATO was established we handed sovereignty over our forces to NATO supreme command, which does not ask us before telling our troops to go.
Dr. Julian Lewis: The hon. Gentleman is describing a hoary old myth that is always brought up in the context of European security and defence. In NATO, however, we always have the option of withdrawing at any moment, whereas we would not have such an option in a common European security and defence policy, if there ever is one.
Mr. Jenkins: I will not belabour the point. Hon. Members should simply read a history of NATO and ask themselves what would have happened if the Russians had attacked. We would not have had a chance to withdraw.
Flexibility is the only indispensable requirement in a changing world. I ask Ministers to work with our partners and to get the best deal for Britain. I wish them good luck in that, because our forces will be facing many difficult challenges. We can also be sure that they will be facing many uncertainties, because of "Events, dear boy. Events."
7.53 pm
Mr. Mike Hancock: The Chairman of the Select Committee on Defence asked Committee members speaking in this debate to offer his apologies for not attending the debate. He is representing us elsewhere today, at one of the European organisations, and regrets that he cannot attend.
I support the views expressed by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) on the Chinook crash in the Mull of Kintyre. I have asked many questions about the crash, and I genuinely believe that the initial investigation and the subsequent review of the accident, because of the way in which they were conducted, have failed miserably to deliver justice to the two pilots of the aircraft and to their families.
It is a real stain on the reputation of the Royal Air Force and of the Ministry of Defence that more action has not been taken to correct that failure. As my right hon. and learned Friend said, a large groundswell of opinion in this place favours such action, and hon. Members on both sides of the House are asking and pleading for justice to be delivered at long last to those two RAF officers. I do not think that that is too much to ask for.
There is sufficient evidence just about the FADEC system—FADEC stands for fully automated digital electronic control—and on contamination in the aircraft's other systems to lead most reasonable people to believe that there should be another inquiry. I believe that such an inquiry would vindicate the belief that the two pilots

781
did all they could to secure the safety of that aircraft and to ensure that it stayed in the air, and that they did nothing to contribute to the disaster.
Mr. Gerald Howarth: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. Does he agree that Royal Air Force regulations maintain that a finding of negligence should be made only when there is no doubt about it whatsoever? Does not a finding of pilot error in the case in question fly in the face of the RAF's own regulations?
Mr. Hancock: I welcome that intervention. It is a pity that the Ministry of Defence has not listened to that point, which has been made time and again by hon. Members and by others. Perhaps it is the MOD's failure to heed it that has led some people to believe that there is another motive behind the finding.
There is no evidence or justification for finding those two men guilty of negligence or of operating the aircraft in a manner that caused it to crash. There is no evidence to support such a claim, and it is pitiful and regrettable that more action has not been taken. I hope that the Secretary of State will order another review and a reopening of the case.
Rev. Martin Smyth: People in Northern Ireland entirely support the point that the hon. Gentleman is making, particularly when we think of the millions that are being spent on raking over the events of so-called Bloody Sunday. Tragically, we lost some of the finest brains in security in that crash. Although the crash is being blamed on pilot error, it is obvious that there were other problems.
Mr. Hancock: I appreciate that supportive intervention. I also hope that the Secretary of State realises that there is a real debt to be paid to those two young officers and to their families. I congratulate their families on the determination that they have shown in continuing this fight.
I am sorry that the Minister has left the Chamber, because I should like to address the issue of the evidence given today to the Defence Committee by Air Marshal Sir John Day. I was at the sitting and took part in questioning the air marshal—who was preceded by his well merited reputation as a straight-talking, straightforward senior officer.
I think that the air marshal was unaware of what awaited him at the sitting. However, when he was asked whether he himself instigated the article that appeared last week in The Sunday Times, or whether he was asked or told to do it, he made it clear that he was asked. He was not suggesting that he was asked by The Sunday Times to do the article. He was suggesting that someone in the Ministry of Defence asked him to do it.
The appalling thing is that the air marshal, in his evidence to the Committee today, said that the article was inaccurate and misrepresented his views. However, various statements in the article are in quotes and are directly attributed to him. Today he claimed that those statements were wrong and that the primary conclusion of the article—that British troops were within hours of invading Kosovo—also was wrong.
Three days have elapsed since the article appeared. Today, however, when the Committee Chairman rightly asked the air marshal something along the lines of "Have
782
you or anyone in the Ministry of Defence sought to take action to put right that article?", his answer was "No". I find that rather surprising.
What was the motive behind the request for the article? Did the Ministry of Defence so dislike the truthful approach of the Defence Committee's report on Kosovo? Was the Ministry so ashamed of the report, which had been brought into the public domain even before the Government had given an appropriate response? We are talking not about an officer serving on the front line or on a base somewhere in Europe, but about someone who works within metres of this Parliament and who regularly gives evidence to the Committee that he was condemning. He went to the press and openly criticised the democratic process that this House holds so precious.
Mr. Spellar: Before the hon. Gentleman winds himself up into a paroxysm of self-righteousness, is not it the case that many of the press reports were so inaccurate and biased that the Chairman of the Select Committee wrote to correct one of the newspapers?
Mr. Hancock: That is an entirely different issue. We are talking not about what the press made of the Defence Committee's report, but about what the Ministry of Defence and senior officers made of it. One of the criticisms was:
None of that courage is recognised in this report.
However, as the Committee Chairman and other members have made clear, the report lists numerous examples of how our forces repeatedly risked their lives. It says:
UK pilots and other aircrew and support staff discharged their mission with distinction…Overall, despite the heroic efforts of UK aircrew and support staff, we must conclude that the UK's contribution to the air campaign in terms of actual firepower rather than support. was somewhat disappointing.
Even when we were talking about what our forces could not achieve, we were praising them for making the effort on our behalf. The Minister and the Secretary of State have done a great disservice to the democratic process of the House and to the work of the Defence Committee.
Mr. Spellar: Is not it the case that the press reports arising from the Select Committee report did not take a balanced approach? The hon. Gentleman is right—those phrases are contained within the report. However, I am not sure whether they are all contained within the summary—which may have leaned a little the other way—or the press release. Did not many of the press reports lean towards the critical side? Is not that exactly what Air Marshal Day indicated he was trying to correct?
Mr. Hancock: If only that had been conveyed in the article. There is not a single sentence within it that contains any such sentiment. Like other members of the Committee, I feel that the Ministry of Defence and the Secretary of State should respond in the near future to the issues raised today.
I congratulate, thank and admire enormously the men and women who serve in our armed forces. We ask so much of them and they ask so little of us in return—decent equipment to do their job, decent pay and some effort to ensure that their families are looked after when

783
they are away. They are undoubtedly our greatest asset. Eurofighter might be a super plane, but it is not a super plane unless a super pilot—male or female—is flying it.
I am disappointed that the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) is not here. He spoke so critically about the role of women in our armed forces, but I must remind him that in one of the front-line squadrons flying missions over Iraq a woman was flying one of those planes, and doing a great job. She was not "undermining"; she was making a magnificent effort. Many of the ground crews who look after those aircraft on the front line are managed and controlled by women in senior positions in the RAF, and they do an excellent job. Many of our ships at sea are undermanned, but many specific jobs on them are being done by women. If women were not there, those ships would be even more severely undermanned. It would be a blow to the defence of this country if we took the line taken by the hon. Member for Blaby.
The Defence Committee's Kosovo report is a balanced effort to look at the good, the bad and the ugly of the campaign. There were major lessons to be learned; whether they will be remains to be seen. One of the biggest failures was the failure of the intelligence community to deliver what was expected of them to enable our troops, airmen and sailors to be effective.
It is right that the equipment used should be criticised and brought to the attention of Ministers, and Ministers are right to say that many of the defects were the direct responsibility of previous Governments. However, the Government have been in office for three and a half years, and some of the issues should have been addressed. During the first debate on defence procurement under the Labour Government, we talked about that year's National Audit Office report. Ministers said, "Of course, we are talking about issues that we have inherited. Things will change." Things had not changed much by the time the last report, covering 1999–2000, was written. After two years of the Labour Government, the cost of 25 projects had increased from £34.8 billion to £37.6 billion—£3.2 billion over their original budget. Many of the projects had been delayed for more than four years.
I welcomed the Secretary of State's comments on the commitment of the Royal Navy and the ships. I had hoped to ask him whether he felt that we asked too much of the Royal Navy and whether our commitments were so thinly spread that many of our sailors—men and women—were doing back-to-back long sea deployments, putting a great deal of stress both on them as professionals and on their families. I wanted to know whether ships on active service in the Adriatic, the Gulf or off the shores of Sierra Leone were seriously undermanned. The Minister should tell us whether any of the ships actively deployed today are undermanned by more than 5 per cent.
There is a serious crewing problem on HMS Ocean, and naval officers and ratings who have served on the ship feel that it is undermanned. If Ocean's crew is one short, that seriously undermines the functioning of the ship. We have to look at what we expect from the Navy. HMS Ocean is a classic example of how cutting corners to save costs will, in the long run, cause great heartache to the Royal Navy, the men and women who serve in it and the Royal Marines who embark on its ships. I hope that we do not duplicate the problems of Ocean when we build the second ship.
784
Many Members have referred to Army accommodation in Bosnia and Kosovo, but what about the accommodation for single soldiers in Aldershot? It is appalling. The Committee was told that it would take more than 10 years to put the shared accommodation for soldiers serving in the British Army in this country into good order.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. He will know that I asked the Secretary of State a question about the accommodation for our troops in Bosnia-Herzegovina. Having inspected Bourlon barracks in Catterick—the regiment's home barracks—I was appalled that in the new millennium, we expect soldiers to live in those conditions and to stay in the Army. How is the Army supposed to recruit new people? Something needs to be done, and should have been done years ago.
Mr. Hancock: I agree entirely. [Interruption.] The Minister, from a sedentary position, is blaming the Tories. Of course they are partly responsible. However, the Government have had three and a half years, and we were told by the adjutant-general today that it would take 10 years to put right the accommodation in Aldershot alone, let alone Catterick. Navy accommodation in Portsmouth still causes problems for single sailors living in barracks when they are not on board ship.
The Army has a number of problems to do with the accommodation that soldiers are expected to live in at home and abroad. The RAF has the continuing problem of keeping its pilots together. It was suggested today to Defence Committee members that senior pilots who leave the RAF will be brought back as civilian instructors for two days a week, while employed elsewhere. That is how desperate we are for front-line pilots. Those issues are serious and must be addressed.
We are taking on long-term commitments in the Balkans. No one with any knowledge of the Balkans, and no one who has visited the area in the past five years, would suggest that the Bosnian situation will get any better soon. I have been there recently, and I suggest that improvement is a generation away at least. [Interruption.] It will take longer than 10 years, sadly. It needs a new generation of people who have grown up together and are prepared to work together.
At present, there is no interface between the communities. What exists is purely artificial. There is no cross-fertilisation of industry and investment, education and culture. Everything that is there is artificial, and things are held in check simply by the presence of an enormous number of soldiers, many from the United Kingdom.
The situation in Kosovo is much the same. Sadly, I do not share the views of the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Smith). I am not optimistic that the election has moved us in the right direction. I have spoken to Kosovars who fought for the UCK—the Kosovo Liberation Army—and still believe that they are on active service. They will not relinquish their campaign until they have a free Kosovo. I fear that they have used the result of the election as a referendum on an independent state in Kosovo. They have put down a marker to that effect. Many of the Kosovars living in the United Kingdom—I have many in my constituency—believe that too. None of them would willingly return to Kosovo until it is a

785
free independent state, not simply an add-on to Serbia or Montenegro. Yet no politicians in this country, and very few in Europe, have cautioned the Kosovars about the way in which they have misinterpreted the election.
The situation in Montenegro is very volatile and open to all sorts of abuses by the President, who will, I am sure, make his move to free his country from the yoke of Serbia. I do not believe that his long-term interests, or those of his country, are linked to Serbia. So we have long-term commitments in the Balkans, which puts stress on the men and women who serve there and on the resources of this country.
As for the European defence identity initiative, I do not believe that the Prime Minister's vision was clear when it came to St. Malo. He has since then hedged his bets one way and then the other in his journey to other European capitals, trying to sell that concept. I have not heard Lord Robertson give a clear indication of how he sees NATO's role in the future with a European defence initiative. I have listened to him on nearly a dozen occasions since he became Secretary-General of NATO. I have listened to European Union politicians and commissioners talk about it. I have listened to Mr. Solana talk about it. They are unclear about their role and about the political dimension.
Some hon. Members, myself included, have views about whether a European rapid reaction force is a feasible proposition. Some have talked about Britain, France and Germany joining together. I am not sure whether the Germans could provide 10,000 men for any long-term deployment. I am certain that most of the other European countries in NATO could not produce anything like that number of personnel for any length of time. Norway, for example, cannot deploy any service men unless they volunteer to go. No service men from Norway who serve in the Balkans are there for any other reason.
Other countries have conscription that lasts for less than a year. So how can countries reasonably be expected to play an active part in a rapid reaction force of 60,000 men if some of them will not even have trained people with the necessary skills to be part of that operation?
Mr. Keetch: Although it is true that conscription in some countries is for less than a year, that is not to say that their armed forces are wholly manned by conscripts. Some forces from those countries consist of professional soldiers who could be equipped in those circumstances.
Mr. Hancock: Yes, of course, but they are the same troops who serve on behalf of their countries in Bosnia and Kosovo. They cannot be in three places. Unlike the United Kingdom, those countries do not have the resources to deploy 1,000 men in three different locations. The problem has not been thought through.
The Defence Committee report produced an interesting graph about the make-up of countries in NATO and the EU regarding the single defence initiative. It shows the countries in the EU but not in NATO, those in NATO but not in the EU, and those that have a policy of non-intervention. However, the rules are that unless all 15 countries sign up to a European initiative from the EU, they cannot act as a European force. Any one has a veto, but at least three—possibly four—will never put troops into any such action force. They have the right of veto but they do not under any circumstances intend to participate. How can it possibly work when countries such
786
as Turkey, which would commit themselves to troops—and have done so—are not allowed round the table? These questions have not been answered.
The right hon. Member for East Devon (Sir P. Emery) talked about the future of the Western European Union parliamentary assembly. Many hon. Members have raised that point time and again to the Prime Minister, to two Secretaries of State for Defence and to the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. They have simply been told, "We don't know the answer." However, a European defence identity has to have parliamentary scrutiny. The EU and the European Parliament cannot provide it because that would mean a major amendment to the treaty of Rome, to which some countries would not agree. We have to create oversight at parliamentary level. Yet Ministers have given no indication of where that will come from. We need answers to those questions.
Let me say in conclusion that I, and the other hon. Members who represent constituencies in south Hampshire, are grateful for the good news about the contracts awarded to Vosper Thornycroft for the Royal Navy's new ships. However, the way in which the contract for the second ship is given and agreed is vital. The Secretary of State said that he sticks by what he said, and that there will be an equitable split—50:50—of the work content for that second ship between BAE Systems and Vosper Thornycroft.
I hope that the Secretary of State will insist on that split being agreed, and on the contract being signed sooner rather than later. The contract is good news for shipbuilding in the south of England, and in particular for my constituency, of which the dockyard forms a significant part. It will also safeguard many existing jobs at Vosper Thornycroft. In the long term, it will open up greater potential for shipbuilding at the Portsmouth naval base.
The contract will improve Vosper Thomycroft's potential to build bigger ships, and that is good news. However, that potential will not be fulfilled unless the Secretary of State steps in to bring people together to agree how the contract will be managed and implemented.
My final point concerns service men and their families. I agree with the hon. Members who have asked about married quarters. I have lost count of the number of times that service men and their families have confronted me with the problems that they have experienced with their homes. The hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan did not exaggerate when he spoke of the number of moves that his constituent had had to make, nor when he said that the final gift from the armed forces to some service men was a notice to quit their married quarters. Sadly, that happens all too often. We as a nation should be ashamed of that.
I am grateful that from time to time the Ministry of Defence shows a good face to the people who serve it so well, but it is disappointing that so many feel so let down, as they do with regard to accommodation and the treatment of their families.
Two pages in the Royal Navy mission statement presented to the Defence Committee were devoted to communication. There was no mention of the need to communicate with the families of service men, whether they are married or living with partners. I know that the Minister for the Armed Forces has tried, as did his predecessor, to do something to boost family welfare in the armed forces. Significant changes have been made,

787
but they are no means sufficient. More still has to be done: the morale of service men returning home, and the difficulties experienced by their families, remain big problems when it comes to retention of personnel in the armed forces. I hope that the Minister will take seriously the comments that have been made about such matters.
Finally, I want to express my appreciation and respect for those men and women who continue to do their best for the people of this country.
8.22 pm
Mr. Gerald Howarth: All hon. Members know that the House is marking time, pending the negotiation of legislation in the other place along the Corridor. However, the advantage of that is that this is the second of no fewer than three days of debates on defence issues in one week. The atmosphere for these debates is rather calmer and more relaxed than is sometimes possible, so I make no complaints about the way in which the Government's business managers have afforded hon. Members the opportunity to raise important local issues and to express our concerns—and congratulations, where they are due.
I must apologise to the Minister as, although I will be present for some of the debate tomorrow, I will not be present for the wind-up speeches in the evening. I have an engagement with the Friends of Airborne Forces in Aldershot, and I hope that he will deem that a suitable excuse for absence. I also apologise to my colleagues on the Opposition Front Bench for not being present for most of the opening speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith).
Sadly, my predecessor as Member of Parliament for Aldershot, Sir Julian Critchley, has died since we last debated defence issues in February. It is about 30 years ago this month that he made his maiden speech for the Aldershot constituency, and it concerned a defence White Paper. He was not only extremely amusing and convivial company, but he brought to the House a unique insight into defence issues. He certainly made his mark in that respect, and was a very appropriate man to represent Aldershot.
In addition, since the House last debated defence matters, the Parachute Regiment, which used to be based in Aldershot, has taken part in the operation in Sierra Leone. All hon. Members will agree that it did so with enormous distinction. I have spoken to members of the 1st Battalion Parachute Regiment who were appalled by what they found in Sierra Leone. They were genuinely moved by the appalling mutilation that some young children suffered. I have no doubt that they were keen to get stuck in and deal with the perpetrators of those horrific crimes.
I understand the reservations expressed by my right hon. and hon. Friends about being sucked into an endless commitment in Sierra Leone, as appears to be happening in Bosnia, Kosovo and elsewhere. Such commitments will impact on the availability of our forces if any other crisis emerges, but the countervailing argument is that the action offered the opportunity to undertake some real training and to engage troops in real action in a genuine and worthwhile cause. How long they will remain in Sierra Leone is another matter, but the personnel involved felt
788
that they were doing an important job, underpinned by a strong moral imperative. They were satisfied with the professionalism with which the task was executed, and I think that the House would agree with that assessment.
I had the great pleasure of attending the 1st Battalion's summer ball, which was not cancelled when the battalion left for Sierra Leone. The battalion managed to discharge the functions required of it by Ministers in time for the ball to go ahead as planned on its return. That is entirely appropriate, given the professionalism of our armed forces. The summer ball was great fun: for a moment, I thought that I had been transported to Lungi airport, as a number of signs had either been replicated or had somehow found their way to Aldershot.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: They had been acquired.
Mr. Spellar: Liberated.
Mr. Howarth: That is quite possible.
The general picture of the armed forces has not improved since we last debated the matter. I do not want to be overly party political about that, as the previous Government made their mistakes. However, recruitment is not improving. The Army remains well below strength—more so than when we last debated these matters. The Royal Air Force is short of 100 fast-jet pilots—again, more than at the time of the previous debate. The problems of morale and overstretch are made worse by the fact that it is taking longer to extract troops from engagements overseas. I support the Government's approach to providing expeditionary forces, but the investment, equipment or troops necessary for the Government to achieve their objectives are lacking.
I hope that the House will bear with me when I refer to matters affecting my constituency of Aldershot, given that it has many military facilities. Moreover, Farnborough is the headquarters of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency.
The Minister's visit to Aldershot on 2 August was much appreciated. A meeting was held with representatives of all the political parties, and we were much reassured by the commitment that the Minister gave that Aldershot would continue to play an important part in the deployment of military garrisons around the country. Although project Connaught is under way to evaluate which facilities need improving and which can be disposed of, we were pleased that Aldershot will retain its role.
I had faxed to me today a letter from the Under-Secretary to Councillor Mike Roberts. I gave notice to the Under-Secretary that I intended to refer to the letter, in which he said:
The shape of the military town itself and the units which reside there may vary, but my Department has no plans to withdraw from Aldershot.
I am keen that the wording should be unambiguous. Far from hearing that there is no intention to withdraw from Aldershot, I would like to hear that the intention is that it should remain one of the four key garrisons in the country. If the Minister of State makes it clear in his reply to the debate that that is what is intended, there will remain no doubt in Aldershot.
Mr. Spellar: I am pleased to do that now.
Mr. Howarth: I am grateful to the Minister for that prompt response, which we shall transmit immediately to Aldershot by the most sophisticated means so that my constituents can be reassured.

789
A number of other decisions are being taken about Aldershot. I give one word of warning to Ministers: if too much land in the Aldershot garrison is released, there will be no slack for expansion in the event, for example, that we need to bring troops back from Germany or elsewhere. I urge the Government not to be too mesmerised by the needs of the Treasury to raise money from the sale of defence estates, in my constituency at any rate, to fund Treasury requirements. To do so would reduce the Aldershot garrison to a small size that would not provide the critical mass that we need.
My next point does not affect my constituency, but I have the express permission of one of my right hon. Friends who has a non-speaking part in this place, namely, the Opposition Chief Whip. He has the Odiham Royal Air Force base in his constituency. It is in our part of north-east Hampshire. The Minister of State kindly wrote to me about plans to move the Chinooks that are stationed at RAF Odiham to Yeovilton in 2004.
I do not want to go into great detail about the advisability or otherwise of ejecting the Fleet air arm from Yeovilton, where it has traditionally been based, or about the difficulties of placing Fleet air arm people on the same site as RAF squadrons. That issue has been well addressed by Captain Leppard from Haslemere in Surrey in a letter in The Daily Telegraph of 18 October, which I commend to Ministers. What on earth is the point of moving the Chinooks from Odiham, where they are closely associated with the Army units with which they work and where they are close to Salisbury plain, and sending them miles away to Yeovilton? In order to get to work, they will have to fly a long way to meet up with the Army units with which it is their job to train.
I saw the serious and close co-operation between the Chinooks and Army units when I went on exercise two years ago with the 10th Battalion Parachute Regiment, sadly now deceased as a TA unit. I urge Ministers to look again at the idea of redeploying the Chinooks from Odiham to Yeovilton. A cynic might suggest that land in north-east Hampshire is rich pickings for sale for house-building purposes, and that that might well appeal to the Treasury. However, there is a strong military case for retaining the Chinooks at RAF Odiham. I urge Ministers to think carefully about that. They will have to justify to us the additional cost of flying from Yeovilton to wherever they have to meet up with the Army and the interference in people's lives in areas that they overfly.
Next I should like to discuss the future of DERA—the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency. We are keen in the defence business to talk in acronyms. It is known as "derer", not "dearer" because it claims that it gives good value for money. I am concerned about the way in which the proposed public-private partnership is developing. Ministers will know that I and my party have opposed the Government's plans. The headquarters of DERA and its chief executive are located in my constituency, so obviously I am keen that the organisation should flourish and I do not want to stand in the way of its flourishing.
The Government are exacerbating the problem by starving the organisation of funds from central Government, making privatisation the only option to keep the organisation viable. In the past six years, the applied and corporate research budget has fallen by 40 per cent. in real terms and it is now below £500 million, whereas it was about £1,000 million a few years ago. Those cuts
790
are very serious. The amount spent on research as a percentage of the defence procurement budget has been cut from 10 per cent. to 6 per cent. in the United Kingdom, whereas both France and Germany have rising research budgets and in the United States, which has a massive overall defence budget, the research budget has been increased from 8.5 to 10 per cent.
As I said in February, I have great concerns that DERA is in limbo. Ministers have to answer some serious questions. How long will we continue with the process of trying to find a PPP solution? I have received from a constituent a letter that sets out some of the issues. It is from a Mr. Newton, who has worked at DERA for some 19 years. He is an experienced scientist and he now manages and co-ordinates advice in a project support role to one of the flagship integrated project teams at Abbey Wood for the former department of defence procurement, or the Defence Procurement Agency, as I believe it now is.
How will Ministers carve up DERA into the part that will remain in the public sector and deal with the sensitive research carried out jointly with the United States and other allies, and the part that advises Ministers and senior civil servants on procurement issues? The latter part of DERA is to be hived off and sold to the highest bidder in the private sector. As my constituent writes:
according to Sir John Chisholm—
the Chief Executive of DERA—
the relationship between the two organizations needs to be extremely close, with staff continuing to share accommodation and possibly even support facilities. It is indeed likely that a close relationship is required, both for R-DERA—
that is the retained DERA—
to have access to the resources and expertise of NewDERA—
the privatised DERA—
in order to fulfil its functions for MOD, and for NewDERA to retain business dependent on the world class expertise of staff in R-DERA. However, if the relationship were to be that close, would the US be content to continue to collaborate with R-DERA? Would UK industry be willing to share its intellectual property rights with R-DERA without worrying that commercially sensitive material might be passed, even inadvertently, to NewDERA staff? In short, how could R-DERA be a trusted partner for international collaborators, industry and academics if it were still to maintain a close relationship with New-DERA? This issue is far too important to be fudged: it must be faced and resolved before the Secretary of State makes a final decision.
Dr. Julian Lewis: My hon. Friend may be interested to know that it is precisely for such reasons that the Select Committee has been so strongly opposed to what has been happening to DERA.
Mr. Howarth: I thank my hon. Friend for giving me that intelligence from the Select Committee. I am of course aware that the Select Committee called on the Government to abandon their proposals on DERA. I find myself in a difficult position; people in my constituency are trying to make the proposals work, although they are fraught with considerable difficulties.
In addressing some of the divisions between the two parts of the organisation, my constituent, Mr. Newton, touched on the relationship with the United States. When my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green and I held a meeting in my constituency recently with representatives from the business community in the defence industries—I do not want to be more specific than

791
that—I was alarmed to find out that they still believed that the Government's proposals were damaging the relationship with the US.
The real difficulty is that we do not know what information the US is no longer sharing with us. The question cannot be asked. However, there is no doubt that representatives of British industry who visit their counterparts in the US are bringing back the information that there is nervousness about the Government's plans. Are the Government planning to introduce a Bill? Do they plan to provide us with a chart showing how they will divide up the organisation? Where will the retained DERA—the continuing public sector operation—be based, while the new DERA, which will ultimately be up for sale, is still based in Farnborough?
Mr. Keetch: The hon. Gentleman touches on a crucial matter. We are told by the Government and by members of the US Administration that there is no problem about DERA privatisation. However, there is an underlying feeling that middle management—the people who actually do the work—may be beginning to lose faith in what the Government are trying to do. Has he gained that impression from talking to people in his constituency? When I talk to people in Malvern, there is a sense that although, at the top, there is an official acceptance that everything might be okay, where the real work is done there are clear concerns.
Mr. Howarth: Yes, there are such concerns. As long ago as May last year, Sir John Chisholm tried to assure his staff that during his trip to the US, he had been able to reassure American opinion—high up in the US Defence Department and in its research establishments. When my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green visited the US last autumn, he found that the Americans were not as reassured as Sir John had implied to his employees and to the rest of us.
Mr. Duncan Smith: It is most interesting that the Government say that they received support from a high level in America. The US will say, however, that it is not its job to interfere directly in the decisions made by a democratically elected Government in the UK. It will state its acceptance because it has to do so, but in practice it does not have to accept what the Government are doing. That is the real point.
Mr. Howarth: Indeed. However, if the Government are intent on taking that route and the decision has been made, I do not want to frustrate or undermine that. None the less, we have a responsibility to draw to the attention of Ministers what people are saying to us. People tell me that they joined DERA because of the ethos. One chap told me, "I joined the organisation because I wanted to do my bit for the country—this was the way I could do it". People did not join to make themselves millionaires. Had they wanted to do that, they would have entered the private sector. Will Ministers tell us how far the proposals for R-DERA and new DERA have advanced?
I draw the attention of Ministers to the closure of the engine test facility at Pyestock—also in Farnborough—in the spring of 2002. They will be aware that I have raised the matter with the Secretary of State over several months.
792
I understand the difficulties faced by Sir John Chisholm; he is losing customers and, once the EJ200 engine for the Eurofighter Typhoon aircraft comes fully into service, there will be no further business for that important test facility. I understand that the facility had its origins in Power Jets Ltd., Sir Frank Whittle's company, which was nationalised by the Labour party in the 1940s—driving Sir Frank Whittle over to the US.
Apart from that side-swipe, there are serious issues to be addressed. I asked Ministers whether we were losing a strategic facility at Pyestock and I was assured that the Government are perfectly happy for Rolls-Royce and others to use facilities available elsewhere in the world. I have discussed the matter with representatives from Rolls-Royce, who tell me that it would cost millions of pounds to continue to use the facilities at Pyestock. It was pointed out that the French have very good facilities, but that is because successive French Governments have been committed to aerospace and have put a lot of money into the development of those facilities.
There is world overcapacity in engine testing facilities, but the country should not be losing Pyestock. That will make us wholly reliant on test facilities abroad in order to remain in the engine development business.
The issue of the cannon for the Eurofighter is extremely important. I hope that, by failing to equip the aircraft with a cannon, the Government are not merely penny pinching due to Treasury strictures. A pilot with experience in Bosnia told me that a cannon is an important weapon on an attack aircraft. He said that the cannon he used there served three valuable purposes: first, to fire warning shots; secondly, to take out targets such as helicopters; and, thirdly, to strafe in support of ground troops. His view was that we would inevitably have to retrofit the weapon at some time in the future, with all the related costs of modification and pilot retraining.
The Government should reverse their decision and apply the cannon immediately.
Dr. Julian Lewis: Could there not be a fourth advantage? It is a heck of a lot cheaper to fire a cannon than a missile, if one has to fire something.
Mr. Howarth: My hon. Friend is entirely correct. That point should also be borne in mind.
Mr. Keetch: May I add a further point? Although electronic counter-measures cannot be deployed against shells from an aircraft, one can deploy them against missiles from an aircraft.
Mr. Howarth: That is game, set and—
Mr. Quentin Davies rose—
Mr. Howarth: It is about to be match.
Mr. Davies: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this very important matter once again, because we must go on about it until it gets into the Government's thick heads that what they are dealing with here is penny wise and pound foolish. Does my hon. Friend agree that if, on a mission, a fighter aircraft has used all its missiles—

793
as it supposedly should do in warfare—if it does not have a cannon it is absolutely defenceless on its way back to base?
Mr. Howarth: Absolutely; as I anticipated, that was game, set and match. However, it is a very serious point. It is a small bit of kit, but it is a reassurance to the pilots and, as my informant tells me, it serves those three valuable purposes.
There is some concern among Royal Air Force pilots that they could be short of spares for the Typhoon, because export clients will be the first to get the spares. Ministers need to reassure Royal Air Force pilots that they will not find themselves grounded because all the spares have been allocated to export customers.
I wish to raise two additional points on flying training. Mention was made of the policing of the no-fly zone in the middle east. That endless straight and level work is not equipping pilots with proper training. There is a great concern that inadequate time should be available for training because of all the pilots' commitments, and that straight and level flying over-desert operations are no substitute for operational combat training.
There is also concern that the Royal Air Force is finding it increasingly difficult to train with the United States Air Force because the number of aircraft that the former can mount at any one time is reducing as a result of the unavailability of spares and other serviceability problems. That is a concern if we cannot train with the United States Air Force.
I mentioned in an intervention on the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) the issue of the Mull of Kintyre Chinook crash. I wish to add my voice to the voices of those who feel that the verdict is wholly unsatisfactory. The initial Royal Air Force board of inquiry that investigated the accident could neither criticise the pilots for human failings nor determine a definite cause of the accident. It seems to me that the Government are in breach of the Royal Air Force's own regulation that only in cases in which there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever should deceased aircrew be found negligent.
In an answer given in the other place on 3 October, Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean said:
It is possible to be certain of the cause for something happening even though the precise details of events leading up to it are less definite.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 3 October 2000; Vol. 616, c. WA 208.]
That is a contradiction in terms. The fact is that the board of inquiry is not certain what happened, and the Royal Air Force regulation requires that those men, although deceased, be given the benefit of the doubt. Certainly their families would appreciate that; they resent the slur on the character of those two young men for what happened and the ultimate finding of the two senior reviewing officers. I see my right hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hampshire (Mr. Arbuthnot) on the Front Bench. The father of one of those pilots is a constituent of his, and I know how much my right hon. Friend is concerned about the matter.
The remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) on political correctness were absolutely spot-on. The Government should not be continuing down this road of political correctness because it corrodes the ethos of the services. They will not see the effect of it
794
tomorrow, next month or next year, but in a few years' time we shall all see the effect, because it will serve to undermine the effectiveness of our armed forces to do what we believe they should be doing, which is to be trained for war fighting, not peacekeeping—for defending these islands, as they have done with such spectacular success for the past 50 years.
8.53 pm
Dr. Julian Lewis: As this debate is taking place so close to Armistice day, I trust that the House will permit me if I do what I sometimes do in such debates, which is to relate a personal story. It is not from a history book; it is from a newspaper, as recently as Saturday 28 October.
The story told is that of Mr. Geoffrey Delaroy-Hall, the son of a Jamaican father and an English mother, who left school in the second world war, became one of the only coloured pilots in Bomber Command, flew 47 missions over Nazi-occupied territory and was awarded the distinguished flying cross for his skill, courage and daring. He is now 79 and the reason that his story was in the paper so recently was that his next-door neighbour, a 30-year-old white, drug-abusing racist, had been given community service and two years' probation for persistently vandalising his property, waging a campaign of abuse against him and threatening to burn him alive as he slept.
Mr. Delaroy-Hall said:
I was the only coloured chap in the squadron, but I never encountered any racism.
We were all in it together and there was marvellous camaraderie. I never considered myself coloured—I considered myself English and fighting for my country.
He explained that he would not leave his home, despite the continuing threat. He said that his neighbour
was not going to get away with it. You have to stand up to bullies, otherwise they just get bolder and bolder and turn threats into actions.
How fitting it is that that gentleman—to whom we should all pay tribute at this time of the year for what he did for our freedom in the second world war—is still correctly applying the lessons that were learned at great cost in the run-up to the second world war. He is even doing so in the personal battle that, disgracefully, he faces today. I am not surprised, but I am sickened, by the fact that the racist thug next door, who had previously been in court and sentenced to various light punishments, has still not received a custodial sentence.
I come to the more general substance of the debate. It is only fair, at the start of my speech, to inform the House of the subjects that I intend to touch on: Kosovo, dictators, Russia, nuclear deterrence and the European security and defence policy. I confidently predict that this is one of the few occasions on which hon. Members will be positively glad to hear me discuss the European security and defence policy, because that will signify that the end is in sight.
Earlier this year, I achieved the summit of my realistic parliamentary ambition by being appointed to the Select Committee on Defence. I was pleased by the fact that we embarked on an investigation into the lessons of Kosovo, and I was even more pleased by the results. Several hon. Members had argued persistently that this was the first example in history of a war being won by air power alone—though many in the House had doubted that—and

795
we had a great opportunity to put those points to a succession of highly qualified witnesses, whom we examined. A definite conclusion emerged—it was felt that although it was impossible to quantify exactly how much was due to which particular factor, air power was only one of four factors that operated to achieve the result in Kosovo, and that it was incorrect to claim that air power alone had secured that result. The four factors were air power, the threat of the use of ground forces, the continuing cohesion of the alliance throughout the crisis, and the fact that the Russians had decided not to back Milosevic during the crisis.
The Committee came up with hard-hitting conclusions, some of which were reasonably predictable. After all, in relation to air power, Air Chief Marshal Sir Michael Graydon, one of the most recent former chiefs of air staff, said right at the outset that it was a mistake specifically to rule out the possible use of ground forces in the crisis because, even if we were not planning to use those forces, the threat that we might do so would be strategically highly significant. The fact that we bent over backwards to rule out the use of ground forces sent to Milosevic the signal that he did not need to configure his forces on the ground to meet the threat of a ground attack.
Mr. Keetch: Will the hon. Gentleman join me in paying tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Paddy Ashdown)—whose book launch I have just attended—for making it clear during the campaign that we should not have ruled out the threat of the use of ground forces? The right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague), however, wanted to rule out their use.
Dr. Lewis: If the hon. Gentleman had attended more of this debate rather than the book launch, he would know that that point had already been made on behalf of the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Paddy Ashdown). I was arguing it throughout that period, as hon. Members on both sides of the House will remember. It is enough for me to bear responsibility for my own predictions without having to take on those of other members of my party or of any other party with whom I may happen to disagree in any instance.
The removal of the threat meant that Milosevic could hide so much of his armour that our Royal Air Force pilots did not have the targets at which to aim that they otherwise would have had. In a sense, they lost all the way down the line, because they ended up being criticised for not achieving a greater hit rate in the bombing attacks. In fact, it had been a mistake to enable the aggressor—in this case, Milosevic—to hide so many potential targets that otherwise would undoubtedly have been destroyed.
We all know why the threat was removed. It relates to the third factor: cohesion and the idea that democratic Governments in the alliance would not wear the prospect of deploying ground forces. There is a difference between not specifically making an overt threat and—in that case, quite wrongly—specifically ruling it out. If ever there was a role for deception policy, it was in that area. Even if we did not intend so to act, we ought to have done everything possible to convey to Milosevic that perhaps we would have done so. Eventually, of course, we did convey that message to Milosevic, but by then we were really intent on such action.
796
I shall leave the subject of Kosovo by mentioning the Russians. The point relates to something that was referred to earlier: the prospect of distinguishing between crisis management and all-out war. We know that the justification for the European security and defence identity—or policy as we must now call it—is crisis-management rather than all-out war. However, had, for example, the Russians taken a much more aggressive stance, a crisis could have become all-out war—entirely uncontrollably. I hope to return to that at the end of my remarks.
There was one point from "Lessons of Kosovo" that we ought not to have had to learn all over again, because we learned it in spades in the 1930s. Unfortunately, the leaders of democratic countries seldom fully appreciate the mentality of dictators. I should like to refer to just a couple of items in the report to point that up.
The Chairman of the Defence Committee, the hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George), put the matter to the Chief of Defence Staff and the permanent secretary at the Ministry of Defence in the following terms:
Was not escalating the ethnic cleansing an option…to throw your hands in the air and say "We did not anticipate this was what he was going to do" indicates that your war gaming was grossly deficient.
The Chief of Defence Staff, General Sir Charles Guthrie, replied:
I think it is extremely difficult to get into Milosevic's mind. We did have people who sat down and said "I am thinking like Milosevic" and we did have psychologists in NATO who actually studied the man's record. It was extremely difficult. Thank heavens he is not like us.
One can say that again.
The permanent secretary, Kevin Tebbit, gave a slightly more revealing answer:
We did not expect the barbarity or the savagery. We did not reckon on the readiness to do quite what they did.
I can only endorse the Defence Committee's conclusion:
it is apparent from the evidence we have taken that, on the UK side at least, little detailed analysis was conducted of how Milosevic and his elite would be likely to react as the target of a coercive campaign…We believe there was insufficient understanding within the Alliance of the character and mentality of the dictator.
Have we not heard that in the past, when dictators have run rings around democrats by holding out that little hope of peace, while all the time remaining intent on conflict?

I welcome the cautionary comments in respect of Russia uttered by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Sir P. Emery). Back in 1938, the only Secret Intelligence Service agent to be knighted for services in the field, Sir Paul Dukes, concluded his memoirs:
Will Russia, with that capacity for extremes which characterises her, emerging from the abyss, cleansed of the putrefaction alike of degenerate Tsarism and soulless Marxism. eventually rise to the topmost heights…? Though the night is still dark, I, for one, will never cease to hope that that fair dawn will break in glory.
We have had false dawns before and I, for one, hope that we are not witnessing another now. Russia is massively enfeebled by her recent experiences and that is why we can take a far more relaxed view of any imminent military threat in the near future or even the medium term. However, I am not encouraged when I hear reports that responsible quarters in Russia are denouncing the Halo Trust—the mine clearance charity with which the late Princess Diana was closely associated—for allegedly training terrorists in military techniques.

797
Similarly, the tragedy of the Kursk is an account of heartlessness, deception and downright lies. At first, even the date on which it happened was not admitted—it was said to have occurred a day later than it had. It was claimed at various times that another submarine had been involved; that there had been survivors; and then that there had been no survivors of the initial explosion. Now, we learn that there had been survivors, after all. As recently as 25 October, the press agency AFP quoted Sergei Zhekov, a member of a Russian parliamentary probe into the catastrophe, telling the Interfax press agency that
he had obtained new facts from Russian naval chiefs and the constructors of the Kursk that backed up his latest theory
that the Kursk sank after colliding with a British submarine. According to the account, the rescue buoys found after the accident bore the colours of Royal Navy buoys, and that immediately after the tragedy
the British navy carried out its first large-scale emergency and rescue exercises for the past 10 years.
Finally, an event that this House knows a little about was cited—it was noted that certain submarines
were withdrawn from service by the British navy in the space of one week.
That is not merely a new version of events. As early as 19 August, the Russian press had published a story in which a source at northern fleet headquarters was quoted claiming that a British submarine had been involved. Once again, it was claimed that British buoys had been detected. It was also alleged that
the British submarine lay on the sea bed for 24 hours after the collision and, apparently, once the damage, which was less substantial than of the Russian submarine, was repaired, it set course for Norway.
According to the information quoted:
Russian special services have surmised that with the assistance of their experts at the scene of the accident, the British intended to try to destroy evidence which proved the fact of a collision with nothing other than a British submarine.
That sort of attitude, in the face of categorical and, I am sure, truthful statements by the Ministry of Defence at the outset that no British submarine was involved in the disaster, can be described only as provocative in the extreme.
Mr. Keetch: I was in Washington at the time of the accident. The allegations to which the hon. Gentleman refers from the Russian media were transmitted in the American media. Rebuttals have been rightly issued by the Government, but does the hon. Gentleman think that it would be worth while if the Minister were tonight to deny that there was any British involvement?
Dr. Lewis: I am sure that the Minister will take whatever action he thinks appropriate. I am confident that the MOD has stated from the outset that the allegations are claptrap, garbage and sheer invention. Worse, however, it is malicious invention, and it does not augur well for the future.
From the future, I refer briefly to the past. I have had a little tussle with the MOD over some time about the lessons that we might draw from the ending of the cold war in the way that it did. The tussle began when about
798
two years ago I attended at Chatham house the launching of the television series about the cold war. It was a long series undertaken by Channel 4 and Jeremy Isaacs. I was concerned that at the launching the well-known KGB spokesman, Vladimir Posner, who now holds an academic post in an American university—perhaps appropriately—stated that whereas the Americans had had their Operation Dropshot contingency plans for a third world war with the Russians during the cold war, there had never been any Soviet plan to attack America or western Europe.
I was somewhat concerned about that, and I wrote to the then Secretary of State for Defence, Lord Robertson as he now is. I pointed out that it must surely be the case that, among the military archives found when the communist empire in eastern Europe and central Europe collapsed, there would be contingency plans showing precisely what was intended and thus showing that military deterrents, and in particular nuclear deterrents, had been effective throughout the cold war in preventing the conflict from breaking out.
I was fobbed off with a reply referring to security of documents of that sort. I believe that there is no legitimate reason why we should now, after the ending of the cold war, fail to examine the lessons that are shown by the access that we undoubtedly have to the military plans of the former Warsaw pact countries to attack NATO.
All we can do at present is to return to what evidence we can obtain unofficially as it were, via historians. I shall read a brief extract from the memoirs, which have recently been published in France, of Sergo Beria, the son of Lavrenti Beria, who as we know was the Himmler of Stalin's day. In something of a journalistic coup, the brilliant French Sovietologist, Dr. Francoise Thom, has interviewed him at great length and written a substantial book setting out what Sergo Beria has to say. The extract reads:
Our acquisition of the atomic bomb in 1949, far from pacifying Stalin, persuaded him that henceforth anything was possible and we could soon move onto the attack. Understanding that our totalitarian system had the advantage over the democracies of being able rapidly to concentrate maximum resources in one area, he hoped to use this temporary superiority to ensure himself a definitive victory, not only in Europe but globally.
The book reveals also that Stalin envisaged taking the whole of Europe hostage, gambling that the Americans would never dare to drop atomic bombs on Europe. Sergo Beria states:
My father did not share this vision.
Referring to Marshal Zhukov of second world war and cold war fame, Beria's son said:
I overheard the following conversation between him and my father in 1952: "The balance of power has altered. We now have anti-aircraft defences. We can win," said Zhukov. "Certainly", said my father, "and then? Our own Soviet territory would be devastated by American nuclear bombs, Europe would be destroyed. What would be the use?".
Helpful as it is to have such evidence of the efficacy of nuclear deterrence in the early years of the cold war, it would be even more helpful in fighting the battles that we will probably have to fight again, from whichever side of the House, for strong defences in a period of confrontation to have material that shows how justified

799
NATO's nuclear deterrent policy was for the duration of the cold war and what a key role it played in winning that unfought battle.
Time is pressing—
Mr. Robathan: Keep going. My hon. Friend's speech is good.
Dr. Lewis: I am being encouraged to carry on. I shall reinstate a subject that I was about to cut out of my speech. I want to refer to a report by the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs on "Weapons of Mass Destruction." I inquired whether there was any prospect of it being debated in the Chamber, and I understand that there are no plans to do so at present. Therefore, it is legitimate to refer to three of its conclusions: one good, one bad and one rather contradictory.
The good conclusion is in paragraph 86, which states:
We accept the Government's statement that, with the reductions in nuclear capability it has made, the UK's deterrent "is the minimum necessary to provide for our security for the foreseeable future and smaller than those of the major nuclear powers." We recommend that the Government make every endeavour to bring about reductions by all nuclear weapon states to genuinely minimum deterrent levels.
That is a good conclusion because it shows that there is no fat left on the British nuclear deterrent. We cannot cut it any further without getting rid of it, and we must not get rid of it unless we are to unlearn all the lessons that the cold war taught us.
The bad conclusion is in paragraph 124, which states:
Britain as a nuclear weapon state, a permanent member of the Security Council, a leading member of the NATO and a member of the G8 and the EU has a key role and a key responsibility in trying to put all Weapons of Mass Destruction under international arms control regimes and in making progress towards their complete elimination. This must surely be one of the highest foreign policy priorities for the Government.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Nonsense
Dr. Lewis: As my hon. Friend observes, that is nonsense. It is dangerous nonsense.
Mr. Robathan: It is garbage, to coin a phrase.
Dr. Lewis: Indeed, it is garbage—the expression much used in the exchanges between the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan).
I shall not detain the House by pointing out yet again the dangerous instability that would ensue if we ever had a nuclear-free world, which would simply make the world safe again for non-nuclear viciousness and massacres of conventional warfare.
The confusing and contradictory conclusion is in paragraph 82 of the report, which states:
The five nuclear weapon states, including the UK, have given an "unequivocal undertaking to accomplish the total abolition of their nuclear arsenals." Mr. Hain—
referring to the Foreign Office Minister—
regards this as a strengthening of the Government's commitment under Article VI of the
800
non-proliferation treaty. The only trouble with that, as I have endeavoured to point out to the House on more than one occasion, is that article VI also requires general and complete disarmament of all weapons. Whereas I am happy to see nuclear weapons go when the world is such an idyllic place, such a wonderful paradise, such a trusting haven that we do not need weapons of any sort, the idea of getting rid of the one before we can safely get rid of the other is nothing but dangerous folly.
Later in the paragraph, there is something more encouraging, which I am sure the Minister will be much more relieved to hear. It states:
In the Strategic Defence Review (SDR) the Government made clear that it would include the UK's nuclear weapons in strategic arms talks "when we are satisfied with progress towards our goal of the global elimination of nuclear weapons."
It continues:
It was stated in the SDR that "while large nuclear arsenals and risks of proliferation remain, our minimum deterrent remains a necessary element of our security".
Mr. Spellar: Hear, hear.
Dr. Lewis: I am glad that the Minister endorses that position, although the idea of reaching a total elimination of nuclear weapons in advance of reaching a conflict-free world still fills me with alarm.
I have reached the blessed point that I promised at the outset, which is the moment when I shall refer briefly to the European security and defence identity, or policy, as it may now be transmogrifying itself. I have tried on numerous occasions to explain in the Select Committee on Defence that that is helping to recreate the uncertainties of the events that led both to the first world war and to the second world war.
In the run-up to those two conflicts, there was never absolute clarity about who would be brought into play if one country attacked another. Perhaps a third country would come in; perhaps it would not. Perhaps a country would stand by its treaty obligations, but then again, perhaps it would not.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: We did.
Dr. Lewis: The real viciousness is that, as my hon. Friend observes, when England did that—
Mr. Keetch: Britain.
Dr. Lewis:—when Britain did that, Hitler, who might have been deterred had he known that it would precipitate war with the United Kingdom and the British empire, was not deterred because he hoped right till the end that we could be persuaded to continue to dishonour the bilateral relationships and alliances that had already been dishonoured so deplorably in the case of Czechoslovakia.
The whole point about NATO was that it showed any potential aggressor that if it went to war with any of the member states, straight away it would be at war with the United Kingdom and, even more importantly, with the Americans. Anything that we do to construct something that gives the possibility that a conflict could break out and be managed, at least in its early stages, without the involvement of the Americans runs the risk of escalating out of control, so that a conflict that might

801
have been deterred with the rigid network and superstructure of NATO properly in place could break out almost unintendedly by slow degrees and miscalculation.
That is a bitter mistake that was made in the 1930s, and it was an achievement of a Labour Government in the late 1940s which brought about the NATO alliance. It is sad that a Labour Government in the 21st century are undermining that important achievement.
9.23 pm
Mr. Robert Key: Following that masterly warm-up, I look forward to the full-day debate on defence policy.
Returning to defence and the armed forces, we have had a remarkable day of debate. It has been an unusually good-natured day, even though there have been some stark differences of opinion across the House. That is as it should be, and should come as no surprise.
Earlier today, I was thinking how things used to go with the former Secretary of State for Defence, Lord Robertson. I remembered that after an early debate following the general election in 1997, he sent me in a brown envelope a copy of a speech that he had made in Lagos on 16 March 1993. It was a speech to the Nigerian Institute of International Affairs entitled, "How to Survive Opposition in Democratic Politics: the Role of a Loyal Opposition". I treasure it. The speech has 12 points, but I shall not delay the House with all of them; instead, I shall refer briefly to three. Item 8 advised:
Use politeness as a weapon. Abuse is wearing and off-putting, but exaggerated politeness can be most effective as a verbal stiletto…Our system can still, notwithstanding these rules, allow robust debate, but it doesn't sound as off-putting to the electors as the Australian use of the word "scum bag"—a common parliamentary expression of affection.
Item 9 counselled:
Use humour ruthlessly. Getting the nation to laugh at your opponents is more devastating than a hundred political debating points. Every politician claims to be able to take a joke but in truth we are the most sensitive creatures, desperate to be popular and loved, and to be laughed at, especially by our own supporters, is deeply wounding. The people also enjoy it. In eastern Europe where political jokes were once a substitute for politics, they say that the jokers are now elected to parliament.
Item 10 stated:
Don't ever get used to Opposition or start enjoying it.
I have no intention of doing that.
Today, I looked at the Ministry of Defence website to check the Department's diary. I did that for a good reason. Last Thursday, when we held the procurement debate, I checked the ministerial diary on the website. It stated: "Announcements: none; speeches: none" yet the Secretary of State announced the six ro-ro ferries and the two landing vessels. Today, the website stated: "Announcements: none; speeches: none" yet the Secretary of State made three announcements in his speech. They were about submarines and the invitation to tender for Bowman, which was issued today. I shall read my copy of Hansard carefully to make sure that I heard the third announcement correctly. The Secretary of State seemed to announce that the next strategic tankers would be built in Australia—good news for the Clyde, no doubt.
After listening to the Secretary of State's speech, in which he made several important points which we shall consider, we enjoyed the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) very much.
802
The Secretary of State and others made several points which need correcting. The first point is about budgets. The Secretary of State, of whom I am fond, bangs on about £16 million-worth of defence cuts. I remind him that the Labour party will have knocked £5 billion off the defence budget by the next general election. Labour Members must stop peddling the myth that the modest reversal of their defence cuts means that there is real growth in the defence budget for the first time in 10 years. Members of the military roll around laughing when they hear that.

The Secretary of State and the Minister were members of the Labour party at the time of "Options for Change". Labour Members voted to cut the defence budget by 50 per cent. after "Options for Change". That would be ridiculous enough if it were not for the Liberal Democrat position. Despite the piety of Liberal Democrat Members and the crocodile tears that they shed for the defence budget at the time of "Options for Change", Labour and Liberal Democrat Members wanted to go further.
The Liberal Democrats devised a policy paper in which they planned to reduce the Army to 73,000 people instead of 116,000. I absolve the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Keetch) of responsibility because he was not a Member of Parliament at the time. He is a new boy, so we cannot get cross about what he said.
Under "Options for Change", the Army was reduced by approximately 44,000 to 116,000 over three years, in response to the lessening of the Soviet threat.
Mr. Keetch: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for absolving me. Will he confirm that the manifesto on which I was elected in 1997 called for the Ministry of Defence budget to remain as it was, and that the position of the Liberal Democrats in the last general election—when I was elected—was to maintain the level of spending at that time?
Mr. Key: I cannot confirm that, because I was not bored enough to read the Liberal Democrat manifesto. However, I point out that under the tenure of my right hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Portillo), there was an increase in defence spending. Our policy at the last election was for a period of stability in the defence budget—so it is silly and sterile to continue to discuss that matter.
When we were battling with the tremendous upheaval in the post-cold war era, Labour and Liberal Democrat Members did not fight us at every turn and say, "Don't cut here; don't follow the lead of our NATO partners." Far from it. They said, "Go further. Cut more." And it was the hon. Member for Ochil (Mr. O'Neill), then a Labour defence spokesman, who said at a Tribune fringe meeting sponsored by the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament on 1 October 1990:
The case for these savings is not a matter of dispute.
That was Labour party policy.
The hon. Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) made many telling points, as I would have expected. It is important for Members with experience of these matters to share the detail—the nitty-gritty—with the House. Of course there is a place for grand international politics and policy, but I took to heart what the hon. Gentleman said about the royal tournament, the Gurkhas, nuclear tests, unexploded ordnance and arms control, because he is an expert.

803
The right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) made a traditional speech based on great experience, concentrating on one or two issues. I echo what he said about the crash of the Chinook ZD 576. What he said was, of course, right. Nothing that anyone can say will convince me otherwise than that there is doubt: it is ridiculous to say that there is no possible doubt in such circumstances.
There is another consideration, however. People wonder why a journal such as Computer Weekly takes such a detailed interest—and it must also be an expensive interest—in the case. It does so because the case is a test case for computer software projects. It sets a precedent. Ruling out the possibility that software is ever to blame, and blaming pilots instead, sends all the wrong signals to software designers.
I strongly agree with the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife. This is not a vendetta, or an attempt to get at anyone in the Ministry of Defence. It seems to me that there was what might be described as a systems failure. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is an eminent lawyer, and I trust his judgment. Moreover, it is also my view that the verdict should be set aside, if that is possible. Legal distractions may have to be addressed.
The hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Smith) spoke at some length, saying that we had got it all wrong. His speech was followed by that of my right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Sir P. Emery). It is a particular pleasure for me to pay tribute to my right hon. Friend, who has enormous experience of the whole field of defence and foreign affairs. He served with the Royal Air Force in the second world war, and subsequently took a long-term interest in relations between America and Europe and, in particular, the United Kingdom. I therefore listened with great attention to what he said about heavy lift, and about the future of the Western European Union. Moreover, in view of the devastating quotation produced by my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith), who cited what the Prime Minister said in June 1997 about the WEU, and the complete volte face that has taken place in Labour policy since then, I feel that my right hon. Friend is entirely right to demand answers from the Government.
My hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) spoke with experience and eloquence—following his distinguished service in the Coldstream Guards—about his active service overseas. He mentioned political correctness, about which I shall have something to say tomorrow—for it is my treat to wind up tomorrow's debate for the Opposition as well.
It was pleasant to hear the gentle, thoughtful tones of the hon. Member for Tamworth (Mr. Jenkins), and I have a great deal of sympathy with what he said about the process of county court evictions, which are the last resort in some technical cases. The Ministry of Defence had no intention of sending people out of married quarters on a sour note: I understand that. Perhaps we can find a better technical solution. There are ways in which these things can be managed. My local authority contains a large number of married quarters, and has a good liaison with the Ministry of Defence. I think that the situation has improved dramatically over the past 10 years.
804
The hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) spoke with great authority, on the basis of experience. My hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) spoke movingly on behalf of his constituents. I am delighted that he wrung a commitment out of the Minister: I think that it is the first time that such a commitment has been secured from the Dispatch Box under the present Government. Of course, my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot is entirely right about the future of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency about relations with the United States not being all that they seem, especially at a working level. The guys doing the tests and trials, going over to talk to Lockheed Martin and others and working alongside American forces personnel report that things are not as they were; the trust has been damaged.
I should be grateful to the Minister if he would consider two or three policy issues; I do not expect answers now. I am a bit of an IT junkie these days. I decided that I had better find out about IT because if I did not, I would never catch up. I start my parliamentary day by checking out the websites. This morning, I looked at the Ministry of Defence website in expectation. I went to the update page, "What's new on the MOD website." The most recent entry, dated 3 March 2000, on that page says:
The new Defence Estates website is now available, having been launched by the Under-Secretary.
The MOD has a new Minister—Dr. Lewis Moonie, Under-Secretary of State for Defence.
That is the most updated update on the MOD website.
Mr. Spellar: That is not true.
Mr. Key: I challenge the Minister to go and check whether it is true, because I took that information from the web this morning.
I then checked out the Defence Estates website, which I recommend; it is very good indeed. The latest entry on that website is dated 12 October, which is very recent. The way in which Defence Estates is filling in the background to the policy decisions that it has to implement is to be commended. I learned a lot from the website this morning. It states:
The Army's need to ensure that infantry soldiers are fully trained for the operational demands of today and the future, makes it essential that Commoners' Rights on Warcop Training Area in Cumbria are acquired by the MOD.
That website is very good. I clicked on the button for further information and then began to understand what at first appearance seemed to be pretty controversial stuff.
I then turned to the Army website, which is up to date and about 10 times as good as the MOD website-I congratulate the Army on it. Its latest entry, dated 24 October, states:
Soldiers attempt double marathon.
There is much else that is exciting on the Army website, and I recommend it. The TA section is also excellent.
I then used a link to the Army Families Federation website. I congratulate the AFF on tackling many of the issues that affect the families and the Government's people policy. Its website represents a great advance and must be widely used because it is accessible from Cyprus, Germany, Northern Ireland and elsewhere. However, that catalogue of delight has a downside: when I phoned the Army Families Federation to congratulate it on the website, I heard that it was having a tough time because

805
it has had to meet the website set-up costs—many thousands of pounds—and is having huge difficulty financing the website's maintenance. The federation will have to come down a peg or two; it thinks that it can update the website itself, but that the quality will suffer—nevertheless, it is a tremendous effort.
We are honoured that the new Under-Secretary of State for Defence—as the website declared him to be this morning—has just entered the Chamber. I congratulate him on his appointment.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Dr. Lewis Moonie): What?
Mr. Key: The Under-Secretary will find out what I mean later. [Interruption.] I can reassure him that he is still at the MOD.
The Army Families Federation keeps us well briefed on housing and married quarters issues. Many hon. Members have referred to those continuing problems. The sale of married quarters to Annington Homes was the best answer that the Conservative party could find when in government to release money that would otherwise be withheld by the Treasury. That sale was hugely controversial, but it seems to be working quite well now. However, there are still problems with the Defence Housing Executive, such as the cutting of its budget, and pushing back refurbishment by a couple of years was not welcome.
Another issue that affects many Army families overseas is the pet travel scheme, at which I ask Ministers to look seriously. The situation in Germany and in Cyprus is particularly difficult. Will Ministers look at the situation in Germany, where there is a dangerous dogs Act? Staffordshire bull terriers are subject to the new size and weight limits under that legislation, which is distressing for families. It is also feared that the Act will cover soppy Labradors. It will be difficult for forces families if their Labradors are classed as dangerous dogs in Germany.
There is also a problem in relation to Cyprus. I believe that the King's Own Scottish Borderers are due to return to the United Kingdom in February 2001. As many as 400 owners of domestic pets will expect to take advantage of the Government's inclusion of Cyprus in the pet travel scheme. That is welcome. However, there are logistical problems; my hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) has brought the matter to my attention and I am grateful to him. Not only does movement in January look difficult, but the legislation necessary to include Cyprus in the scheme might be knocked back because of the Government's legislative problems in the other place. There are also problems of transit. I understand that both British Airways and Cyprus Airways are reluctant to carry pets back to this country—and, if they did, where would they go? The issue is causing distress to families in Cyprus on quite a large scale. I would be grateful if Ministers looked at it.
The final issue to which I want to refer is the problem of medical services and attention to medical records. We know that, in Sierra Leone, there were some 50 cases of malaria. By good luck, the first forces in happened to be heading for an exercise, so they had all the right inoculations and all was well, but I think I am right in saying that the spearhead battalion was not inoculated. Everyone in the spearhead battalion cannot be completely
806
inoculated with everything all the time. It is medically a bad idea. I understand all that, but there was a problem and it was not unique.
I discussed the matter with some Australian army officers, who regularly have to operate in tropical situations. They were amazed at the drug being used by the British military and were not surprised that there were problems of dizziness, loss of vision and so on, which could be dangerous in a military situation.
I remember my experience with anti-malaria pills in Nicaragua. I was issued with two bottles. I had to take the pills from one bottle every day and from the other bottle every week. I got them the wrong way round. It was a most peculiar experience—not a very good one.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: While my hon. Friend is on the subject of Army medical services, will he pay tribute to the TA, which is providing so many personnel to cover for military medical services in Kosovo, Bosnia and elsewhere? They are playing a valuable part.
Mr. Key: I echo that warm tribute to the TA and its contribution to defence medical services. We look forward to a resolution of the problems in defence medical services. No doubt that is a debate for another day.
I was pleased that the Minister for the Armed Forces answered a parliamentary question on Monday setting out the MOD's policy on tropical diseases. That is good news because it gets things set out properly, but there is another issue, to which I draw Ministers' attention. Regarding the Defence Committee report—I think it was the second—on Gulf war syndrome, the then Minister for the Armed Forces, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames), said that the MOD faced the problem of a lack of records—when soldiers were inoculated in the field, records were not kept—that one of the answers was likely to be an electronic tag, which could be programmed on site, and that work was being done on that.
That was 1996. In 1999, I took the matter up and asked a parliamentary question. The Minister for the Armed Forces replied in a letter on 19 August, saying that smart cards could have personnel and logistics applications. He said:
work is still at an early stage, and no decisions have been taken.
I followed that up a year later with a question to the Secretary of State. The Under-Secretary answered on 19 June 2000, saying:
The possible development of an ID tag or card to store medical information electronically is being considered in the context of plans to provide the Defence Medical Services with a comprehensive and integrated information system.—[Official Report, 19 June 2000; Vol. 352, c. 35W.]
That was good news, but when I went to a Land Command briefing in September, no one present had ever heard anything about any such scheme. I wondered what was going on, given that six years had elapsed. Last week, I read an article in Computer Weekly headed "US Military Gets smartcards", which stated:
The US Department of Defence…has this month started issuing smartcards for more than four million users around the world in what is the largest-ever single installation of digital identity. The cards will be used for a wide range of applications, including building access and financial access, as well as access to government information. The card will serve as the authentication token for the DoD's computerised public key infrastructure…The target date for completing the initial issuing of the new card is the end of September 2001.

807
The United States will issue a card to 4 million personnel in a year's time. Ministers therefore owe us an explanation about what the Government have been doing for six years on smart tags. I know that this difficult issue is being examined in the review of defence medical services. The matter is urgent, as our troops would benefit from proper medical records being kept and, in the long run, this is a spend-to-save economy which we may well support. I should therefore be grateful if the Government reconsidered the matter.
We shall return to this debate tomorrow, and I simply wish to echo what I said earlier about today's debate being well informed and good natured. We have covered a lot of ground and I look forward to tomorrow.
9.46 pm
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mr. John Spellar): Inevitably, certain items will be dealt with tomorrow, some by the Under-Secretary, and some by myself.
The hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) said that our debate had been good-humoured and good-natured, which was generally true. Unfortunately, however, it started rather unpleasantly with attacks from the hon. Members for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) and for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) concerning Air Marshal Day's appearance before the Select Committee on Defence. I checked what happened. Officials asked Air Marshal Day whether he would give an interview to The Sunday Times. That paper could not get to the briefing that Air Marshal Day and an official gave on Tuesday. The interview was not at the instigation of Ministers although, of course, Ministers' offices would have been informed of it in the normal way. Any suggestion that Air Marshal Day was pressurised into giving an interview is utter nonsense and shows that the hon. Members for Portsmouth, South and for Canterbury do not know the man. It is appropriate to put that on the record. Indeed, the hon. Gentlemen gave differing interpretations of the matter and might have done better to have waited until the record came out, rather than leap in as they did.
The hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) got in on the act and, as usual, returned to the question of the Chief of the Defence Staff in Kosovo. During the major conflict in Kosovo in which the armed forces were engaged day in, day out, we all remember that the hon. Gentleman's main contribution was to call for the Chief of the Defence Staff to be sacked. The hon. Gentleman may think that we have forgotten that, but we certainly have not. Frankly, he will never be taken seriously on defence in this House until he apologises for that despicable behaviour.
The hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) returned again to the question of the Navy not leaving port at Christmas. I thought that I dealt with that quite well at the time, when I said that that was a very good thing too. Apart from the strategic deterrent or important operations, I would certainly hope that the fleet would be alongside at Christmas so that personnel could be at home with their families. It never ceases to amaze me why Conservative Members keep raising that issue.
The hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey) mentioned his experience of going to Kosovo. It reminded me of an occasion, in August, shortly after we had gone
808
into Kosovo, when I was walking down Pristina high street with one well-armed soldier wearing a flak jacket walking in front of me and another one walking behind me. I asked the young officer accompanying me whether he was expecting trouble. He said, "Not really, but losing a Minister is not very career enhancing." I said, "It seems that your interests and mine coincide, son." We got on quite well.
The speech of the hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green and those of some other hon. Members seemed to be slightly obsessive in relation to Europe. It was a little reminiscent of the obsessive period in the Labour party when everything had to be analysed in relation to class. There were class analyses of, for example, industrial relations, social relations, the neighbourhood and the family. There was also an analysis of football and the class struggle.
A colleague in the Greenwich Labour party told me about a debate on pets being kept on one of the local estates. The argument went on for a while, until one of the members got up and said, "Comrades, are we not forgetting something? Comrade Lenin had a cat." After that intervention, a whole new debate was begun on that interesting bit of sociological information. It is getting a little like that among Conservative Members—everything comes back to their obsession with Europe. They are concerned about Europe and football, or about Europe and defence.
Conservative Members' obsession with Europe extends even to mounting a sustained criticism of a very eminent European official. The fact that he is a previous Secretary General of NATO did not seem to phase them in their criticism. They seemed to think that he is a bit subversive, which makes it a little surprising that he was appointed to that office when they were in government and, presumably, had some influence in the matter. They have attacked someone who has served Europe, European defence and NATO extremely well.
I think that Conservative Members, rather than continuing the internal Conservative party feud on Europe, should be considering what best serves the United Kingdom's interests and examining—as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said—what works best in the opinion of other NATO members, including the United States.
Of course we do not want separate planning and the creation of a parallel bureaucracy; Europe and NATO do not have the resources to do that. That is precisely why we want to use NATO assets. I should think that hon. Members would want to support that position, which sustains the alliance rather than weakens it. One of the key questions frequently asked by our friends in the United States is about Europe spending more money, getting greater output and bearing its share of the defence burden.
My hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Smith) talked about the Defence Aviation Repair Agency at St. Athan. A clear feature of DARA's plan has been to consolidate and specialise on different sites. The DARA Fleetlands facility, for example, transferred electronics work to DARA Sealands. So successful has that specialisation been, and so successful the management of DARA, that various leading American companies are working in partnership with it to service third-party contracts. In Almondbank, in Perth, for example, DARA

809
has been servicing not only our Chinooks, getting them back in the air in record time, but servicing those of the Dutch.
It is a real success story, but it requires efficient management and some rationalisation and specialisation, particularly in the use of specialist equipment. Obviously, there will have to be discussions with the work force and with their trade unions, to ensure that the work force's best interests are accommodated. However, we should not resist rationalisation without paying due regard to its benefits.
My hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan talked about married quarters. I do not know the details of the case that he described, but I am prepared to look into it. Sometimes a local housing authority requires a formal legal eviction notice in order that someone can get council accommodation. That happens within families, because, as Members of Parliament, we have to tell people to write a letter, giving the member of their family notice to leave the property so that they can then formally register, under the required regulations, with the local authority for housing. Sometimes that necessity is distressing, but there is a reason for it. However, that does not mean that mistakes are not made.
We understand the problems of housing that we inherited, not least the rushed and botched job of the sale to Annington Homes. The amount needed for repair was underestimated and therefore the time scale for the renovation of the properties had to be moved from 2003 to 2005. However, nearly 25 per cent. of the stock is at standard I condition and about 52 per cent requires some refurbishment—but not a great amount—to raise it to standard 1. Quite a bit of the stock still requires refurbishment and at least £61 million will be spent in this financial year on upgrades.
I take the point that the focus has been on family quarters and some fairly appalling single living accommodation. The Under-Secretary is responsible for our construction programme and he is working with Defence Estates and the top level budget holders on a programme for refurbishing or rebuilding properties. That is important.
The right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) talked about SSNs; I am pleased that he welcomed the good news on HMS Triumph. He talked about co-operation with other countries, and I have drawn attention to the fact that we have had discussions with our long-standing partner in nuclear submarine operations, the US Navy. Those discussions have been successful and we work closely with it on the technical details. We also support each other.
The right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife, the hon. Members for Portsmouth, South, for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) and others talked about the Mull of Kintyre Chinook crash. We part company here, as we believe that flying too fast, too low and into fog is negligence. Frankly, various other details that are put forward do not change that fundamental point.
Mr. Gerald Howarth: I am grateful to the Minister for referring to that matter, if disappointed by his remarks. What experience has the Chinook fleet had since the accident with the full authority digital engine control system? What other inadvertent manoeuvres has the fleet been involved in since then?
Mr. Spellar: I will write to the hon. Gentleman with those details. I have talked to many of the Chinook pilots
810
and asked what they think about the helicopter. They say that it is an excellent craft to work with; indeed, one pilot said to me, "Do you honestly think I would be flying this if I didn't feel it was safe?" Hon. Members ought to balance that with the thoughts put to them by those running the campaign about that crash.
My hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) asked about the role of the Ministry of Defence police in Kosovo. There are 56 members of the MOD police in the international police in Kosovo, as well as a number who are working in the criminal intelligence unit and the Kosovo police school. However, the quality of their contribution is also significant. For example, two of them are working on an international team that is assessing police from other countries. They are making a significant contribution to policing with the quality of their work.
My hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde was also right that we are looking at the tour of the duty and considering whether more flexibility can be introduced.
My hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth (Mr. Jenkins) rightly drew attention to cuts in the army under "Options for Change". I was pleased that he drew attention to the improvements that have taken place in wages and conditions. He, along with a number of hon. Members—
It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
Debate to be resumed tomorrow.

PETITIONS

  Child Labour
  10 pm
  Mr. Mark Todd: I wish to present a petition signed by the staff and pupils of Repton school in my constituency. It declares that Her Majesty's Government have ratified the convention on the rights of the child, are therefore committed to children's rights and therefore have a responsibility to do all that they can to help end the exploitation of child labourers in overseas countries.
  The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Secretary of State for International Development that all aid to countries such as Indonesia, India, Mali or Pakistan, where child labour is known to be an extensive problem, should have a reasonable percentage of it linked to a programme of education for the child labourers.
  And the Petitioners remain, etc.
  To lie upon the Table.

Formby Fire Station
10.1 pm
Mrs. Claire Curtis-Thomas: I have the honour to present this petition to the House of Commons. It has arisen because the Merseyside fire authority has indicated that it intends to change the staffing arrangements at Formby fire station from continuous staffing arrangements at night to part-time staffing.

811
A community safety programme has been introduced but has not been fully implemented, and therefore we are not assured of its effectiveness.
This petition declares, therefore, that we are totally opposed to the proposed change in the night-time staffing arrangements put forward by the Merseyside fire authority with regard to the Formby fire station. We believe that any change to the existing staffing arrangements at Formby fire station could jeopardise life and property.
The petitioners—some 4,000—therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Home Secretary to reject the application from Merseyside fire authority to change the existing night-time staffing arrangements at Formby fire station.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.
To lie upon the Table.

Mobile Homes (Cheadle Hulme)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mrs. McGuire.]
10.2 pm
Mr. Stephen Day: It gives me great pleasure to welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Speaker. This is the first opportunity that I have had to do so.
It is a privilege to be able to speak in this Adjournment debate on behalf of my constituents at Chesters Croft in Cheadle Hulme. The Minister has kindly written to me, and spoken to me, to advise me that this matter has, thank goodness, been resolved. I am sure that he will make it clear how it has been resolved when he replies. However, it is right that I put the thanks of my constituents on the record.
The Minister will be aware that my constituents at Chesters Croft live in homes that are classified as mobile, but are permanent in every sense. There is not a wheel in sight, they have brick bases, nice extensions and nice gardens. However, they live adjacent to the central section of the Manchester airport eastern link road, now open and running. Because they are classified as mobile homes, they were denied the right that exists for all residents in homes classified as permanent—that of claiming compensation for the noise pollution and air pollution resulting from the road being built.
The promise that those regulations would be introduced was made at the public inquiry into the Manchester airport eastern link road in 1991. I have lost count of the number of times that I have raised this issue in letters and telephone calls, and even on the Floor of the House. However, I am happy that I will not have to do so any more, and I know that the people in Chesters Croft will be delighted that justice has been done.
I am especially grateful for the kindness shown by the Minister in dealing with the matter. I do not know what has spurred things on so suddenly, but whatever it was, I thank the Government, on behalf of my constituents. I do not want to make any party political points, as no Minister of any Government was directly responsible for the delays, but my constituents had to wait a very long time for the matter to be resolved. Consultation takes time—but nine years is stretching matters somewhat. However, we got there eventually, and I am very grateful to the Minister.
My constituents have asked me to raise two practical points, but I accept that the Minister may not be able to answer them tonight and assure him that a response in writing would be equally acceptable. First, the local authority in Stockport mentioned to some Chesters Croft residents that the regulations arrived at after consultation might take the form of limiting the available compensation to £1,500. Can the Minister confirm that, and did the proposal emerge from the consultation exercise? If he cannot give me the details now, I should be grateful if he would notify me of them later, so that I can explain the matter to my constituents. If that is the case, they will want to know why.
Secondly, will the regulations be retrospective? I hope so, so that the people at Chesters Croft can avail themselves of their rights.
I have no other questions to ask, as the Minister has already resolved the problem.
10.6 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Keith Hill): May I begin, Mr. Speaker, by joining in the many accolades extended to you on your election? I also congratulate the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr. Day) on securing an Adjournment debate on an issue that I know is dear to his heart, and of great importance to his constituents at Chesters Croft, Cheadle Hulme. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his kind words, which are typical of the decency and amiability for which he is so highly regarded in the House.
I am tempted to say, "Thank you, rejoice," and sit down straight away, but the cries for more from all the hon. Members in this full Chamber encourage me to say a few words about this extraordinary story. The hon. Member for Cheadle and his constituents deserve some explanation—and apology—for the very long wait imposed on them.
I confirm at the outset that I well understand, and sympathise with, the frustration and concern repeatedly expressed by the hon. Members for Cheadle and for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples), and by my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Sawford), on behalf of their constituents, about the unacceptably long delay in bringing the regulations into force.
I confess that I have not had the opportunity to discover whether a gap in excess of nine years between the commencement of enabling legislation and the subsequent introduction of regulations is an all-time record. If it is not, it cannot be far short. In any event, it is certainly not something that I or my ministerial colleagues condone or regard as acceptable.
As the House well knows, this Government are fully committed, through their agenda for modernising the civil service, to rooting out inefficiency whatever its cause, and to ensuring the highest possible standards of service. I am sorry that we have fallen substantially short of that ideal in this particular case, and I ask the hon. Member for Cheadle to convey to his constituents my personal apologies, and my gratitude for their exceptional patience.
Paragraph 70 of schedule 15 of the Planning and Compensation Act 1991 was enacted by the previous Administration, and gave the then Secretary of State for Transport powers to introduce regulations enabling compensation to be paid in respect of caravans and other mobile dwellings affected by noise caused by public works. The need for special regulations arises because owners of mobile homes or houseboats do not normally have a qualifying interest in the land on which or over which their home is situated.
Without that they are unable first to serve a statutory blight notice requiring the authority responsible to acquire their home, secondly, to ask for their home to be acquired under the discretionary purchase powers introduced by the 1991 Act, and thirdly, to claim compensation under the provisions of part I of the Land Compensation Act 1973. Statutory noise insulation measures such as secondary glazing are inappropriate for mobile homes as they would be impractical and ineffective.
814
Following commencement of the 1991 Act, the then Minister for Roads and Traffic charged officials in his Department with preparing the intended new regulations for his approval. This reflected the fact that the major source of nuisance to mobile homes arises from the construction and/or use of new or altered highways. Regulations were drafted as early as 1992, but placed in abeyance during more pressing work on preparing and introducing guidelines to implement the discretionary purchase powers that I mentioned earlier.
I know from my briefing for the debate that the hon. Member for Cheadle has pleaded his constituents' case both in writing and in person with the Minister then responsible for roads on several occasions. In June 1996, that Minister gave an assurance that he had asked the Highways Agency, the executive agency responsible for trunk roads, to press on with drafting regulations for his approval and for consultation with local authority associations and other interested parties.
That work appears to have progressed at a disappointingly slow rate—so much so that the hon. Gentleman again found it necessary to make representations, this time to my noble Friend Baroness Hayman, who, in autumn 1997, commissioned the Highways Agency to undertake a public consultation exercise on the draft regulations, which by this time it had prepared.
That exercise, conducted during 1998, took longer than expected and it was not until June 1999 that the agency reported its findings to my noble Friend Lord Whitty and sought his approval to work up a final version of the regulations for his approval. It subsequently took a lot of work on the part of both officials and lawyers to get the regulations to the point at which they were fit to receive ministerial approval, and to iron out the expenditure implications, especially those for local highway authorities, which, along with the Highways Agency, will be required to implement them.
I fear that this has not been a happy tale, but I am delighted to be able to report that it is one that ends on a positive note. I am very pleased to be able to inform the House and the hon. Gentleman that, following completion of final drafting, the regulations have now been signed and approved by my noble Friend Lord Whitty, as the Minister responsible.
As the hon. Member for Cheadle knows, the regulations were laid before both Houses earlier today and, subject to Parliament's approval, we expect them to be brought into force on 23 November. As I know that this is an issue of special concern to the hon. Gentleman and to his constituents at Chesters Croft, I wish to confirm that the regulations have been drafted to provide for retrospective application to 25 September 1990, as intended in the 1991 Act.
The hon. Gentleman also asked how much eligible claimants would be entitled to receive. The answer is that the regulations provide for a flat rate payment of £1,650. That amount is broadly comparable with the cost of noise insulation provided to conventional home owners. The level of payment will be kept under review, but not index linked, because other flat rate provisions in land compensation are not variable.

815
Nine years on, the retrospectivity that we are conferring in this case is exceptional, but we are dealing with exceptional circumstances, in which it would be indefensible to penalise those who have been waiting for so long and so patiently to make their claim.
816
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his tireless and ultimately successful campaign on behalf of his constituents, whose long-standing claims will, I trust, be settled at the earliest opportunity.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at fourteen minutes past Ten o'clock.

Preamble
[MR. MICHAEL LORD in the Chair]

Peru
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]
9.30 am
Mr. Tom Clarke: We last had a debate on Peruvian elections, which is still an ongoing issue, at my request on 19 April in this Chamber. The hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) and I had just returned from acting as observers at the election that was held on Sunday 9 April. We gave what we thought was a fair, but sadly, not a very inspiring account of a rigged and unsatisfactory election. We, along with several important bodies from the European Union as well as almost every international organisation involved in such matters, called for a re-run at least between the two main candidates, Mr. Fujimori and Mr. Toledo.
We pointed out that, if a re-run were to take place, it should be held on the basis of the need for that second round to be free and fair and seen to be so. The hon. Member for East Londonderry and I stressed that the democratic process, not personalities, was the key to our objectives, and that the inequality between the Peruvian Opposition and the huge state machine should be addressed.
Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will you advise me how we should proceed, given that the Minister who is to reply to the debate has unfortunately not made it into the Chamber this morning? How will the Minister be able to respond adequately to the debate, given that he has already missed the opening remarks of the right hon. Member for Coatbridge and Chryston (Mr. Clarke)?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Lady is quite right. The Minister should be present in the Chamber to hear the debate from the beginning. However, I understand that he is not very far away, so the debate will continue.
Mr. Clarke: I understand the concerns of the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan), but, because of the storms, traffic conditions are appalling in London. The Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane), and the Government Whip, who are both present, have assured me that when the Minister arrives they will acquaint him with the beginning of my remarks. Such procedure is not unknown on the Floor of the House and the importance of the subject and the fact that a debate on such issues may not be held for a long time suggests that the procedures, as you have outlined them, Mr. Deputy Speaker, are correct and that we should continue.
204WH
I shall return to the main points of the report on the first round of elections. The hon. Member for East Londonderry and I argued strongly for a second election to be held in the cause of true democracy and said that it was absolutely essential that European Union monitoring should continue to be crucial. I hope that I shall have the opportunity to re-emphasise that point later in the debate.
Decisions were not taken as rapidly as we would have wanted following the earlier debate. For a time, there was no proposal for a second round despite the ambiguity and unfairness of the first. Then there was a predicted and predictable political crisis in Peru, which intensified, I am sad to say.
Eventually—it seemed good news at the time—a second round was declared for 28 May. Mr. Toledo was the main challenger to the incumbent, President Fujimori, and all the other candidates withdrew on his behalf after the first round, due to their concerns about its nature. Unfortunately, for reasons that I fully understand, Mr. Toledo withdrew shortly before the polling date, saying that the electoral process was still flawed and that it was impossible to put the electronics and computers right in time to have a fair election and a fair result. He said that the second round was another sham and so refused to take part.
There was a great deal of support for Mr. Toledo's view. No evidence showed that lessons had been learned from the previous election and its unacceptable nature. The President insisted that the election would take place, reminded the world that voting was compulsory, and a result was then declared, seemingly on his behalf. It was a truly remarkable result: Fujimori received 51.2 per cent., Toledo, who had said that he was not standing, received 17.6 per cent., and 31. 2 per cent. of the ballot was spoilt papers, most in support of Toledo or decrying the nature of the election.
The crisis, which had already been identified, became more intense. The election was unacceptable and its result was not regarded as fair. Fujimori's standing was in question among large sections of the people of Peru and in the international community. The crisis came to a head on 28 July, on what was to be Mr. Fujimori's new investiture as President. There were widespread riots, and the scene was nasty. [Interruption.] I welcome the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz). I understand the reasons for his seven-minute delay and know that he is now being informed about our debate.
Six people died and more than 100 were injured in the riots. The situation was clearly unacceptable. It brought into question where Peru was headed, whether there was real democracy, and the credibility of the so-called elected president. On 16 September, Mr. Fujimori bowed to international pressure and called new elections. He said that he would not be a candidate, and there was a widespread sigh of relief. In many respects, that feeling of relief was short-lived, and will be until the position is clarified further. Mr. Fujimori's action may have been genuine, and the military was seen to back it, which I hope remains its position as its role is important.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle), who is responsible for such matters, is

205WH
abroad. He played a major role and is entitled to great credit for the current turn of events. His statement during the first elections, his reply to our previous debate and his contributions elsewhere have been most helpful in getting us thus far, although I do not want to crow too much about where exactly we are.
The role of the European Union and the Organisation of American States remains extremely important, and I know that the Minister will give due regard to their role in future events and to the need for the crucial, democratic election.
I agreed strongly with my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West when, following the announcement by President Fujimori of fresh elections, he said:
I hope that the Peruvian authorities will recognise that there is a continuing role for the Organisation of American States in facilitating and strengthening the position of Peruvian democracy.
That remains the case and I hope that the Minister will enlighten us on the matter. However, it must be said strongly that some of us are deeply worried that on 14 October, Eduardo Latorre, the OAS permanent representative in Peru, announced that he was suspending talks with the Peruvian Government about reform and democratic elections, which had been agreed in an OAS-brokered accord. Mr. Latorre was worried that the Peruvian Government had passed through Congress a motion extending its present session by two weeks. That begged the question what is it all about. Are the elections for real? Does Fujimori intend to do what he said he would do? Does the military support him? Will the country have that precious democracy? Some saw the two-week postponement as Fujimori playing for time; he would not hesitate to do that if it were necessary to his strategy. He would play for time, for example, to help to protect some of his friends in the military, a subject to which I hope to return.
I share the concern about stability, which is important, especially in respect of the military. So is justice, however, and we are seeking both. As I said in April, whenever the elections take place, the democratic process should be seen to be the victor rather than any individual. As it stands, Mr. Toledo appears to be the main challenger for the post. During our visit for the first election, and given the view of the other candidates when they withdrew in his favour, it was clear that he represented the hopes of those who were in favour of peaceful change. Those of us who saw Mr. Toledo on the Sunday evening when things could have become even more difficult—there could have been even more bloodshed on the streets—felt that he behaved with grace, responsibility and understanding, yet he was, nevertheless, able to feel the pulse of the majority of people in Peru who genuinely wanted a democratic election leading to a democratic result.
During the Democrats convention in Los Angeles to choose the presidential candidate, I met Mr. Toledo briefly, in the presence of the former Vice-President Walter Mondale. I obtained from our brief conversation Mr. Toledo's acceptance of the fact that in Peru today, mindful of his influence, people acknowledge the need for that transparency and pluralism. What Mr. Toledo rightly demanded for his own candidature should be extended to all the other candidates, who should be free to enter into new elections. He agreed that the rights of
206WH
all candidates were paramount. Mr. Toledo's position will be enhanced if he continues to express that view, and I have no reason to believe that he will not. In line with the European Union monitors and the international community, I believe that when the next election takes place, there must be balanced access to the broadcasting media. Unlike during the previous election, candidates should be entitled to fair coverage on television, radio and in the press. They should not be subjected to state-sponsored smears. The atmosphere must be right for a free election, which it certainly was not last time.
I wish to ask my hon. Friend the Minister an important question about the timetable for the election. The Peruvian Opposition are calling for the election to take place in January 2001, whereas the Peruvian Government prefer May 2001. It is legitimate to argue about the timing, but should not the priority be to establish a democratic framework rather than have an election as soon as possible just for the sake of it? However, the other side of the coin is that—consistent with the electoral machine performing to 100 per cent. efficiency, and with transparency and fairness—the people of Peru must feel that their senate and president are truly democratically elected. I look forward to hearing the Minister's response. I wonder whether the British Government have a particular view about the appropriate date or whether, like myself, they are still asking questions about it. If they do have a view, I look forward to hearing it.
I move on to the role of the European Union. I hope that the UK and the EU continue to work together to ensure that the election is seen to be fair. In August, the EU issued a declaration:
The European Union reaffirms its support for the efforts made in the framework of the Organisation of American States to consolidate democracy in Peru. It hopes that all sectors of political life will be able to show their maturity and constructive willingness to begin to implement, as soon as possible, the timetable proposed by the High-level Mission of the OAS for strengthening public institutions and democratic coexistence in Peru.
It continued:
The European Union calls on the Government of Peru to implement the democratic principles referred to in the Rio Declaration, which form the basis of a partnership between the European Union and Latin America.
I should like to ask my hon. Friend the Minister a few questions on that. In the light of the OAS suspending talks with the Government, can my hon. Friend shed light on any discussions that may have taken place between the EU and OAS in recent weeks, which sought to encourage the OAS to continue its role in Peru? What is the latest position on the partnership between the EU and Latin America? What ministerial discussions have been held with EU colleagues on recent circumstances in Peru? Finally, does my hon. Friend accept that when the election takes place, it is important for international observers to be present? Does he believe that the UK should be represented?
I now turn to the role of the European Parliament. Consistent with the role of the European Union, the European Parliament adopted resolutions—one on 15 June and another in October—on the presidential elections in Peru. They were occasioned by the crisis following the announcement by President Fujimori of his resignation and the intention to hold new elections.
Significantly, the European Parliament expressed its surprise at the turn taken by events, in particular the request to the Republic of Panama to grant political

207WH
asylum to the former national intelligence service adviser, Vladimiro Montesinos. I was pleased that Mr. Montesinos' request for asylum was refused, especially given accusations of his involvement in the trafficking of arms and drugs.
What is the view of my hon. Friend the Minister on the role, or better still the absence, of Mr. Montesinos in future? Considering his influence, he is a truly remarkable person. He is dangerous and sinister. Nevertheless, some aspects of the current circumstances are not without humour. On Friday 27 October, The Scotsman, a newspaper that would not usually be expected to report on such matters, produced an extremely interesting article that read almost like a novel. It was headed: "Fujimori leads search for former spymaster". In it, Fujimori was presented as a sort of Sherlock Holmes, trying to find Montesinos, a sort of cross between the Scarlet Pimpernel and the Artful Dodger. However, we are no nearer to finding out exactly where Montesinos is and what he is doing, and that could be serious.
Jeremy McDermott's excellent piece states:
Peru's president has launched a manhunt for his former spymaster, shining light into the shadows where his former adviser once wielded power equal to his own.
The president, Alberto Fujimori, surrounded by tight security, led the operation to find Vladimiro Montesinos, heading a search party on Wednesday night and into the early hours of yesterday, with sniffer dogs combing suspected hiding places while helicopters hovered in the vicinity.
That was an extremely important search. Later, the article states:
Mr Montesinos has eluded capture, perhaps with the connivance of Peruvian security forces, the upper echelons of which he personally appointed over the last eight years
—not ideal circumstances for finding the suspect.
Worryingly, the article states:
Fujimori critics see the hunt for Mr Montesinos as mere window dressing, and insist the spymaster is still in charge of the all-powerful military and the judicial system, and the president is either still in touch with him, or totally impotent.
It is extremely worrying if that last part is true, and any help that my hon. Friend the Minister can give in providing a United Kingdom input to deal with the problem would be welcome.
The European Parliament called on the European Union to undertake a special programme to give active support to the new phase of the democratic process in Peru and to co-ordinate the initiatives taken by member states. It added that it
proposes to send a delegation to the Republic of Peru in order to obtain first-hand information regarding the actual political situation and the prospects for peaceful change.
I should like my hon. Friend the Minister to give us the latest information on the initiatives supporting democracy in light of recent developments and to tell us whether a delegation has visited Peru on behalf of the European Union, and if so what conclusions it reached.
I am reaching the end of my comments, Mr. Cook—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Frank Cook): Order. It seems to be a weekly event, but I must remind all right hon. and hon. Members that the House, in its wisdom, when it agreed to hold parallel sittings here, decided that
208WH
the meetings should be presided over by Deputy Speakers unless substitute Chairmen needed to be recruited.
Mr. Clarke: Such is my respect for you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I feel suitably humble about such a dreadful lapse. I apologise sincerely.
I am aware that other hon. Members wish to speak and I turn now to three important issues, which will impinge upon the election campaign itself, but which will not necessarily be resolved once the result is declared. My hon. Friend the Minister will not be surprised when I touch on the issue of human rights in Peru. Many things have been said, to their credit, by Amnesty International but here in Britain—and I pay tribute to them—the Peru Support Group has been immensely proactive and helpful.
Peruvian society has been suffering for a long time from systematic human rights abuses and a lack of good governance. Future relations between the European Union and Peru must be based on respect for human rights and democratic principles. The European Union has the right to say those things, if only because of its humanitarian contribution. The hon. Member for East Londonderry and I saw evidence of that when we were in Peru. I want that humanitarian aid to continue, but when we visited some of the shanty towns and saw that water was at last being delivered and roads were being provided by EU funding, I found it a little perverse that Mr. Fujimori was turning that into a vote-catching exercise. He took credit for what was being done, and by implication for the resources that were being made available by the EU. The role of the EU in giving that humanitarian aid is nevertheless underscored by that point.
In congratulating very warmly my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development and her Department on an excellent contribution that is reflected elsewhere in South America, I turn to an issue that that will be close to her heart. It is the sterilisation programme carried out by the Fujimori Government, which might be described as an anti-woman policy. I understand the population problems and the debate about them, but programmes should be based on consent. Information should also be available to men. The sort of enforcement of which there is clear evidence involving women is wholly unacceptable. It is an infringement of human rights and is repugnant both to our Government and to the international community. What measures will the Government take together with the EU and human rights organisations to establish programmes based on consent? Can my hon. Friend also enlighten us about the reforms recently announced by the Peruvian Government to their population and reproductive health programmes?
I want to turn finally to the issue of terrorism, on which, oddly enough—and I do not for one moment wish to be sparing of my praise even for Mr. Fujimori—every candidate in the election paid tribute to him. Without exception, they said that he had dealt with the matter and dealt with it well. Nevertheless, the way in which he wanted to alter the constitution was unacceptable, and inconsistent with their values.
Early in the 1980s internal stability was threatened by the emergence of the Maoist group Shining Path, which attempted to undermine the country's return to a

209WH
civilian administration with violent attacks on Government and army locations. In 1995, President Fujimori introduced tough new laws to combat terrorism, aimed mainly at curbing the activities of Shining Path, which have apparently succeeded in reducing the number of deaths brought about by terrorist violence. Several prominent members of the group have been imprisoned. As I said, there was praise for the stand that the President took.
Nevertheless, a legacy remains to be dealt with. In May 1998, the President initiated a new anti-crime campaign, headed by the intelligence service appropriately enough called SIN. We were told that the reason for that was to deal with terrorism, but it went much further, interfering clearly and blatantly with individual civil rights. For example, it attacked several left-of-centre political groups. The International Confederation of Free Trade Unions, based in Brussels, says that the President has deliberately targeted trade unions. The ICFTU noted the widespread use of child labour in Peru today, which has continued even in the face of the elections. On 1 May 1998, Fujimori agreed new draconian laws, including sentences of up to 25 years for 16-year-olds, and trial of civilians by the military courts.
I expect that we all want to erase such past occurrences, and make progress. How do the Government plan to use their influence to end child labour in Peru, something for which they have campaigned very well elsewhere? What measures does my hon. Friend propose to ensure that military trials for civilians are ended, and replaced by procedures that meet international human rights standards? It would be helpful, in the context of those draconian measures, if the three judges who had the courage to go against President Fujimori when he sought to distort the constitution, and who declined to uphold his appeal, were at the very least reinstated and given the opportunity to continue with their work, instead of being penalised for attempting to prevent what is recognised as an outrage to Peru's democratic process.
I hope that the Minister will see that many hon. Members look forward to the forthcoming elections because they are important not only for Peru—of course the emergence of democracy in all its forms is important—but for South America. They are important also for this country, which rightly has the reputation of trying, when the case presents itself, to push the boat that bit further towards democracy, transparency and fairness. My heavens, nowhere more than in Peru is that approach needed.
10.3 am
Dr. Desmond Turner: First, I must declare an interest. It gives me pleasure to do so, because I was recently invited by the Peru Support Group to visit Peru on a fact-finding mission with an ad hoc delegation including Lord Avebury just before the inauguration of President Fujimori and the marcha de los cuatros suyos, which was one of the events that precipitated his standing down. The mission was sponsored by Christian Aid, by the Catholic Agency for Overseas Development—CAFODߞand by War on Want. I am grateful to those organisations for making
210WH
the visit possible because, as with most of us in Britain, my knowledge of Peru was extremely limited. One rarely sees a reference to matters Peruvian in the British press or media; the country does not normally show on our radar screens. That is unfortunate because it does matter, even if it is remote to us, because it is a crucial part of a region where democracy has a chequered history.
There is probably no country in South America about which one can say that democracy is truly established and flourishing—it certainly has not flourished in Peru for a long time. However, that country has presented a facade of democracy to the outside world, and I found the truth behind that façade profoundly shocking. The form of government could best be summarised as a quasi-military dictatorship pretending to be a democracy, and the manipulation done on every stratum of Peruvian society to achieve that result is truly shocking.
The visit showed me how appalling the social cost of the failure of democracy can be. Over the past 10 years, Peru has not progressed as most countries gradually do—in fact, it has regressed. Fifty-four per cent. of its population live in abject poverty, as defined by the measure of a dollar or less a day. That percentage is appalling and staggering. It must be the highest percentage of people living in poverty in any countryߞhigher even than in Indiaߞyet Peru is internationally perceived as not poor, but a middle-income state. Owing to the appalling maldistribution of wealth, there are a few wealthy people and millions of very poor people. The percentage of poverty has increased alarmingly over the past 10 years, partly as a direct result of Fujimori's Administration and the unbridled application of what are laughingly called "neo-liberal" economic policies, which I would characterise as Thatcherism gone mad. For example, when the mining industry was privatised with massive job losses, where did those workers end up? They ended up in the shanty towns around Lima and other large cities, with no visible means of support because there is no social net.
Fujimori managed to control Shining Path, but at a massive cost, because members of the Peruvian military did not stop to draw a distinction when they came to a village. They did not stop to ask villagers whether they supported Shining Path or were loyal to the Government, but assumed that the villagers supported Shining Path and acted accordingly, with the result that nearly 1 million people were displaced from villages in the remote areas in which Shining Path was active. Those people also ended up in the shanty towns, living on less than a dollar a day.
The land used for peasant farming has been largely depopulated because farmers cannot get a realistic price for their produce. They cannot eke a living out of the land, so they end up in shanty towns around the major cities, with no water, depending on food aid. Lima has one third of the Peruvian population—more than 9 million people. Most live in shanty towns that have grown up during the past nine years. It is one of the most appalling places that I have ever seen, almost entirely as a result of its Government's policies.
The landߞthis is a nice trickߞis reverting at knockdown prices to the people from whom it was originally distributed. When we visited the city of Ica, we saw large asparagus fields, owned by the daughter of

211WH
the President. I have taken to avoiding buying asparagus labelled Peruvian when I go to Sainsbury's, because I know where the profits are going and they are not going to the Peruvian people.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Chryston (Mr. Clarke) said, it is supremely ironic that the President has used the issue of international aid to his electoral advantage. He has created massive poverty, but has turned it to his advantage by manipulation so bizarre that I am still trying to get my head around it. My right hon. Friend has described some of the extraordinary features of the Peruvian elections. However, it is not just a question of bent elections; the whole country has been bent. There is no way that such a bent election could be tolerated if the whole social structure of the country had not been systematically corrupted and perverted, which sadly is what has happened in Peru.
The fraudulence of the election beggars belief. We are all familiar with counts in our, fortunately, well and tightly controlled elections. If the returning officer finds one ballot paper too many or too few, he goes through agonies until he can account for it. However, in the Peruvian election, a million more votes were counted than there were people on the register. In this country, we would be delighted if we could get anywhere near 100 per cent. turnout, but if anyone tried to claim 110 per cent. turnout, we would smell a large rat. On that index alone, the election was completely fraudulent.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Chryston gave the voting figures in the second round of the election, in which only one candidate was declared. It is even doubtful whether Mr. Fujimori received more than 50 per cent. of the votes in that round, because I am told that exit polls showed a lower figure for Mr. Fujimori. In the first round of elections, there was a large discrepancy between the figures recorded at exit polls and the actual figures that were finally declared.
We heard allegations of extreme ballot-rigging. The name of Mr. Toledo had been cut off several hundred thousand ballot papers. People may have wanted to vote for him, but his name simply was not on the ballot paper. Several hundred thousand papers were issued with a mark already made against Fujimori's name. Other marked papers were given to the women responsible for running the community kitchens in the barrios distributing European food aid; they were told that if they handed over their marked paper and voted for Mr. Fujimori, they would be given a new paper in return and if they showed that they would be paid. Those are small indications of what happened on the day.
Computers counted and registered the votes; there were difficulties with electronic counting in the London mayoral elections, but in this case there were allegations, which I take very seriously, that the numbers in the computer were altered, which is easy to do, especially if observers are not allowed into the count. My information is that international observers did not monitor the counting process. Thus, there was an election in which the ballot was not secret, and the counting process was not transparent and monitored. An election cannot possibly be fair under such
212WH
circumstances, especially as most of the electoral sins were committed long before the election day.
A good example is the misuse of international aid to which we are a major European contributor. The aid is largely in the form of food, sent in packages clearly marked "EU" with the blue circle and the ring of stars. It used to be distributed through non-governmental organisations, notably Caritas, which still has the warehouses and the capacity for distribution. However, the responsibility for distribution was assumed by the Government, who set up their own agency for distribution, called PRONAA, which repackaged the food labelled with that name. The community kitchens depended on PRONAA for their primitive equipment and for the food.
The system was run by women, some of whom we talked to. We met a cross-section of Peruvian society, from generals whom Fujimori had sacked to community kitchen workers who had also been sacked because they expressed their opposition to him.
Community kitchen workers who did not support Fujimori and put up his picture in their kitchen did not get supplies and were not allowed to operate. People had to survive on the rations, which did not include meat, a luxury that they could not afford. They were living on vegetable stew and if they were lucky they could add stock, made by boiling up bones. They were poor people, living on a poor diet. The irony is that Fujimori got most of his votes from those poor people. That is one example of the misuse of aid.
I found the way in which American food aid was used equally disturbing. I take this as truth, as the US ambassador carefully explained it to me. The American aid, which presumably came from the mid-western grain belt surpluses, was sold on the market in Peru for prices that undercut those of native farmers. That forced more peasants off the land, into the barrios, and into dependence on food aid. The proceeds of the sale of food were used for agricultural projects. That was used by the Fujimori Government as yet another opportunity for clientalism, because only Fujimori supporters receive the benefit of support for their agricultural projects.
One cannot have an open lead-up to an election unless there is open access to the media. That has certainly not existed in Peru until now. Opposition candidates are denied access to all the terrestrial television channels. They have only recently been allowed access to a cable channel. It carefully followed our visit to Lima, but I do not know how it managed to survive under the Montesinos regime. A couple of terrestrial channels that showed programmes exposing some of Fujimori's misdoings were confiscated from their owners, who were prosecuted.
If journalists were bold enough to put their heads above the parapet and print anything seriously critical of Fujimori, they were harassed, tortured and even killed. Most tried sensibly to keep their heads just below the parapet, so the Opposition parties could get their hands on little printed media. A couple of brave titles survived—I do not know how—but with only limited circulation. The so-called prensa chicha, the yellow press, is read by vast numbers of the population,

213WH
especially those with a low standard of literacy. It is a little like some of our less salubrious press titles, being a mixture of pornography and Government propaganda.
Mr. Denis MacShane: Which one is that?
Dr. Turner: I know that there is such a thing as parliamentary privilege, but I had better be careful
We heard strong allegations that the prensa chicha was funded by the Government. There were also manipulations of Government advertising. In the lead-up to the elections, the Government's especially large advertising budget went only to organs with the right editorial policy. Lo and behold, the supply of advertising revenue stopped immediately when the election started.
I could go on and on listing the pre-election abuses, but the systematic human rights abuses are most important, too. More than 250 people are in prison and have been there for about 10 years. As far as one knows they are quite innocent; they have been locked up without any evidence because of alleged association with terrorism. They have not been tried and their cases have not been reviewed. An independent tribunal has recommended 58 of them for release; it found that there was no evidence against them. They are still in prison.
There is no permanent independent judiciary in Peru. The only judges are on provisional appointments. That somewhat colours their judgment in court. If they give the wrong judgment their appointment is not renewed. There was a system of appointing permanent judiciary, but that has gone. We receive bitter and worried messages from the Society of Advocates in Peru. The intelligentsia, as represented by all civil institutions, universities and so on, have been systematically corrupted by Fujimori. All senior university appointments are Government appointments. At the same time, more than 6,000 lecturers were dismissed.
A great concern when it comes to replacing Fujimori with a stable democratic alternative is the fact that there is no concerted Opposition, only a generalised feeling that it is wrong and has to change. That is because Fujimori has also systematically repressed political parties so that there are no genuine political party structures, as we would recognise them, and no identifiable Opposition manifesto for alternative government. Those are serious weaknesses if the country is to be revised.
We need to look at the role the international community can play in trying to help Peruvians resolve their problems. In the last analysis, only Peruvians can do that. But there is a great deal that we and the international community can do. We must take a long hard look at the way in which international aid goes to Peru to ensure that it cannot be used by the Government as an electoral weapon. There are strong NGOs on the ground in Peru. I would certainly advocate that they should be the conduit for all aid to Peru in future. With clear international accountability no accusations can be levelled.
We must do something, although I do not know how, to try to support democratic parties in Peru. Above all we must impress on the Organisation of American
214WH
States that its role as envisaged by the suspended concordat is no less critical now than it was before Fujimori appeared to stand down and to promise new elections. Until Fujimori and his Government are prepared to stand back and allow internationally organised and accountable election processes, there will always be a nagging doubt that Fujimori is trying to retain his power by another method, as he has consistently over the past 10 years.
I conclude by stressing the need for us and the rest of the international community to help to secure a stable future for Peru and for the continent of South America. That need is as pressing as it ever was. I hope that the UK Government will play a full role in the process.
10.30 am
Mr. John McFall: I am grateful for the opportunity to make a short contribution to this morning's debate. In common with some of my colleagues, I have visited Peru on several occasions. It is eight years since my last visit, but, sadly, this morning's comments are as pressing now as they were in 1992.
Peru's problem lies in the combined rule of President Fujimori and Vladimiro Montesinos—a corrupt core that has infected the whole body politic. I have seen that for myself, with respect to the judiciary, the military, the economic sphere and civil society. In the judicial sphere, there has been considerable comment from the American Bar Association and international jurors about the military courts. I saw the results of those military courts when I visited Castro Castro prison in Lima and spoke to innocent people who found themselves behind bars for 20 years or even for the rest of their lives because their neighbour had reported them to the authorities. Back-up, witnesses or evidence were not necessary to condemn those people. I have spoken to them and I know that the judicial system is corrupt.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Chryston (Mr. Clarke) and my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Dr. Turner) mentioned human rights. I visited the valleys outside Lima in which bodies were dropped after being torturedߞand it is still going on. We heard about farmers leaving their farms to go into shanty towns. Drugs are a huge problem in the country, but we shall never overcome it if we allow a system under which farmers in Huagua valley, for example, can earn more for coca growing than for ordinary crops. We in the international community must deal with that pressing problem.
As to the economy, it is shameful to call it a privatisation programme. It is simply a rip-off with thousands of people losing their jobs. There is no genuine party political structure, only bribery on a country-wide scale. The international community must recognise that that is what is happening in Peru. We must establish fraternal political links, particularly with non-governmental organisations and the good indigenous people of Peru. The country needs to be built up democratically from the floor. The international community should acknowledge the corruption, but realise that there are good people in civil society—in the barrios, for example, where women help by working in the soup kitchens. I took those memories back with me. The international community must demonstrate solidarity and ensure that not just a veneer, but real democracy takes root in Peru.
10.33 am
Mr. Mark Oaten: I start by congratulating the right hon. Member for Coatbridge and Chryston (Mr. Clarke) on securing this debate. It is the second occasion on which he has raised these important issues in this Chamber. His insight into what is happening in Peru has been invaluable. I also congratulate the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Dr. Turner) on his contribution, particularly his detailed and absorbing analysis of what took place in the elections. He demonstrated clearly how rotten to the core is the electoral system in Peru. His knowledge, based on such recent visits, was invaluable.
None of us who attended the previous Westminster Hall debate on Peru could have expected the dramatic events of the past six months. Just as the world had become resigned to the depressing conclusion that Mr. Fujimori had steamrollered through the extension of his presidency, the wheels appear to have fallen off during the past couple of months. Mr. Fujimori's announcement that he would stand down on 16 September—less than two months into his third presidential term—has suddenly given the people of Peru some fresh hope, but their understandable optimism must be sobered by the assessment of the scale of the task ahead. The stark realities of turning that window of opportunity into a genuine democracy will be very hard, as the contributions to this morning's debate have demonstrated.
It is now a month since Mr. Fujimori's so-called resignation and it is clear that both he and Vladimiro Montesinos, the former chief of the national intelligence service, will not disappear from the political scene as easily as we would like them to. Peru is an apple that is rotten to the core, not only in terms of bribery and corruption and the way in which its election system operates, but in terms of the severe poverty that we have heard about this morning. Since 1992 when Mr. Fujimori temporarily closed the Congress and the supreme court, and relaunched state institutions under his control, the army has enjoyed a central role in running Peru's affairs. Mr. Montesinos has hand-picked many of the army's commanders. Four regional commanders were former classmates at the military academy and even his brother-in-law was put in charge of the garrison in Lima.
How can some of the difficulties be resolved? The diagnosis is clear: Peru needs a democratic framework if the next elections are to stand a chance of being fair. Transitions from an authoritarian rule are invariably messy and, at the very least, Peru now faces several months of instability. The key question is whether the armed forces can be persuaded to accept the genuine democratic reforms that are needed. Reforms in the media, the electoral authorities and the courts will all have to take place if elections are to be meaningful. I strongly believe that the army should have no place in politics, but achieving that position in Peru will clearly not be easy.
Last weekend, Mr. Fujimori sacked key chiefs in the army, air force and navy who had been loyal to the disgraced Mr. Montesinos. However, we should treat such sackings with caution because it has been suggested by observers that all Mr. Fujimori has done is to replace those chiefs with other supporters.
216WH
On 16 September, Mr. Fujimori promised that he would deactivate the national intelligence service, but that action was not signed into law until a month later, thus generating fears that supporters of Fujimori, agents and equipment had been smuggled out into various military installations during the intervening period. Let us not forget that the national intelligence unit is believed to be responsible for ordering death squad killings, taking protection money from drug traffickers, manipulating the media and corrupting the armed forces. It is deeply disturbing if individuals from the unit are still active.
The Government and military in Peru must be separated, which involves removing army commanders who are linked to the previous era. The resulting military and intelligence service must be made as transparent as possible and that should be coupled with the establishment of an independent prosecution service and judiciary. It could begin with the reinstatement of the three constitutional tribunal judges who were dismissed by Mr. Fujimori after they had attempted to block his changes to the constitution.
Other steps need to be taken. The elections need to be fair and democratic. That requires the handing back of the private television company to its ousted owner. Next time, Opposition parties that try to fight fair elections must be guaranteed airtime on popular television stations. At the time of the previous election, the costs were set at deliberately high levels to preclude that from happening. In addition, the discredited electoral authority needs to be fully reformed. One head is currently under investigation and the other head has resigned. It is important that a new head is appointed who can then begin to tackle the whole electoral process that we have heard about from the hon. Member for Kemptown and ensure that there is an accurate electoral register.
It is important that the international community plays its part in solving the problems in Peru. It is vital that outside bodies, such as the Organisation of American States, promote productive discourse between all parties. A genuinely democratic order must be based on an effective system of checks and balances. As Peru attempts to begin such a transition, it is important that outside forces, including Britain and the European Union, play a major role in attempting to put the country in the right direction. I hope that the Minister will comment on the action that we plan to take. A solid start would be to persuade the Administration to return to the jurisdiction of the Interamerican convention on human rights. There are clear human rights problems, which need to be solved.
We need to recognise that if the current issues are to be resolved and if democratic elections are to take place, perhaps the Opposition parties will need help with techniques for fighting a proper campaign. There are major difficulties ahead for Peru, but the first priority is to ensure that Peru can lay the foundations of a new and lasting democratic order, beginning with urgent reform of its flawed institutions.
10.39 am
Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: First, I join the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten) in congratulating the right hon. Member for Coatbridge

217WH
and Chryston (Mr. Clarke) on securing the debate. His passion for Peru is well known in the House and he was ably supported by the hon. Members for Brighton, Kemptown (Dr. Turner) and for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall); the latter obviously has an abiding interest in the country's future.
I am delighted that the Minister is with us. I hope that in addition to providing us with an assessment of what Her Majesty's Government will be able to contribute to the election process in Peru, he will, from his perspective as Minister for Europe, tell us what the European Union proposes to do in that respect.
When Alberto Fujimori took office in 1990, all was not well with Peru, as those present would no doubt acknowledge. The Administration of Alan Garcia left behind some woeful figures. The monthly rate of inflation ranged from 25 per cent. to 32 per cent. in the second half of 1989, exceeded 40 per cent. in June 1990 and mounted to an incredible 78 per cent. by July. The central Government deficit increased from 4 per cent. of gross domestic product in January 1990 to 9 per cent. by May. The money supply of the country increased six times over from January to the end of July and the new Fujimori Government had to act quickly. They did so, as we have heard, with some criticism from many quarters. They acted on privatisation, deregulation and structural adjustment and those were painful measures. However, from an economic perspective, Peru had been taken by the scruff of the neck and there were improvements.
The figures speak for themselves. Gross domestic product went up from $28.8 billion in 1989 to $57.2 billion in 1999 and inflation came down from a staggering 2,926.6 per cent. in 1989—and then 7,650 per cent. in 1990—to 3.8 per cent. in 1999. We must ask ourselves why, with success like that, anyone would want to tamper with the so-called democratic process. Sadly, that is exactly what Fujimori did. On 5 April 1992, following a disagreement with Congress over proposed economic and political reforms, the President staged a military-backed self-coup, shutting down Congress and the courts. A new election was set and not surprisingly he won his first term on 9 April 1995. I say that it was his first term; the new constitution that he drew up allowed a President two consecutive terms and his supporters argue that his first term did not count since he was elected under a previous constitution.
The election in 2000 was set for 9 April with a second round on 28 May. As we have heard, the Opposition candidates faced major handicaps. One was the media. With a few brave exceptions they are completely subservient to Mr. Fujimori. The television has been cowed by threats of withdrawal of Government advertising. For example, Mr. Baruch Ivcher, an Israeli-born immigrant, was stripped of both his Peruvian nationality and his televise on station after it screened reports concerning Montesinos, Mr. Fujimori's intelligence chief. Mr. lvcher's former station now carries a diet similar to that of the yellow press and other stations simply ignore the activities of Opposition candidates. It is quite unacceptable.
Alejandro Toledo, the Opposition presidential candidate, soon discovered how the system works. On the campaign's final day, the President's closing rally
218WH
was at one point being transmitted simultaneously by all seven free access television channels. Those of the Opposition candidates did not appear at all. On election day, only one free access channel provided full coverage, and it switched abruptly to a Mexican comedy film when Mr. Toledo's protests began. For ordinary Peruvians, there was a complete news blackout.
Another handicap is that Mr. Fujimori has built a powerful political organisation that blurs the division between Government, state and party. Known as Peru 2000, the machine has been set up on corporatist lines, working in shanty towns and among peasant farmers and small businesses. In Lima's poorer surburbs, once independent community leaders have been won over with the offer of paid jobs distributing Government food aid in return for supporting the Fujimori cause. Mr. Fujimori also has the backing of the armed forces, an expensive and sophisticated intelligence service and a pliant congressional majority.
Many hon. Members have discussed the abuses of the elections in 2000. Three days after the presidential election, the authorities announced that with almost 98 per cent. of the ballots counted, Mr. Fujimori had 49.84 per cent. of the vote, just short of an absolute majority, which meant a run-off against Alejandro Toledo. However, the first round of the presidential elections had been one of the dirtiest election campaigns in Peru's history. The Opposition complained of irregularities, and we have already heard from the hon. Member for Kemptown how Mr. Toledo's name was excised from the voting slips—one of the most blatant abuses.
Suspicions arose when the national electoral processes office, the Oficina Nacional de Procesos Electorales, which had promised a result within hours of the vote, was issuing partial results showing Mr. Fujimori within a whisker of an absolute majority, despite observers finding that most of the ONPE's computer centres were closed. Mr. Eduardo Stein, head of the observer team sent by the OAS, said that the results were "coming out of nowhere" and that "something very sinister" was going on. It is hardly surprising that Mr. Toledo withdrew from the run-off, as the right hon. Member for Coatbridge and Chryston said, and that Fujimori claimed victory.
Events move quickly in Peru. A month ago, Fujimori seemed to be firmly in charge. He had fired Montesinos, the former head of intelligence. It does not help someone's political cause when his spy chief surfaces on a video, allegedly paying $15,000 to buy the political support of an Opposition member of Congress. He announced the dissolution of the intelligence service, which has the appropriate acronym SIN, and called new elections in which he pledged not to participate. I suppose that he should be congratulated on that. Indeed, Peruvian Opposition leaders and the United States Government hailed his decision to step aside and hold new elections, while Montesinos fled in disgrace to an uncertain exile in Panama.
Sinister events have overtaken the delicate democracy. With his claim for political asylum rejected, Montesinos seems to have turned the tables on Fujimori, and has returned to Peru and gone into hiding. Varying reports have been received about what is happening to him. However, there is a belief in certain quarters that although Fujimori says that he is firmly in

219WH
charge, Montesinos and his cronies, who command Peru's armed forces, may force Fujimori to step aside sooner than expected to create a power vacuum into which Montesinos can step. I hope that the Minister will enlighten us on his assessment of the latest developments.
We all hope for a peaceful transitional period and that Peru can achieve the democracy that it so desires. The latest report suggests that the election should take place no later than 8 April next year, and both the Government and the Opposition in Peru seem to have agreed on that. We welcome that development and hope that the Minister can confirm it today.
It is not all doom and gloom for Peru. Peru has come a long way, but it is far from perfect. I finish by quoting two paragraphs from a letter sent to me by the Ambassador from Peru, Mr. Gilbert Chauny, who tries to keep hon. Members informed. He should be congratulated on his work in keeping us up to speed with developments in Peru, although I do not always agree with what he writes in his letters. However, two paragraphs of a letter that he wrote in June suggest that there is a political will to move towards an improved democracy. He writes:
Nevertheless, we must recognise that all countries have not and cannot consolidate simultaneously the same level of democracy. In the case of Peru, we have met many difficulties in this regard. We are all aware of the deep crisis we experienced at the end of the 80s, which evidently slowed us in our objectives. Democracy presumes peace and reciprocal trust, it implies co-operation and common work. On the other hand, terrorism brings insecurity and fear, people change and this weakens democracy. That is why building democracy has been difficult and risky in our country. It has been necessary to start laying down the foundations for making possible a productive environment, with incentives, with a real desire to join efforts to attain the welfare of our people. We were, therefore, obliged to obtain both internal as well as external peace.
Nevertheless, much has been achieved. As Peruvians, we would like not to be judged for what we still need to accomplish in order to reach a utopian level of democracy; but to be judged for what we have already accomplished with great effort, and for our strong commitment to further improve and perfect our democracy.
I hope that the Minister will reassure us that his Government will help support the Peruvians in their commitment to further and improve their democracy.
10.50 am
The Minister for Europe (Mr. Keith Vaz): The debate has been excellent, and I am sorry that I could not be present to hear my right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Chryston (Mr. Clarke) open it. My right hon. Friend has taken up causes with great passion and eloquence throughout his parliamentary career. The way in which he put the case today shows the strong feelings he has about Peru, democracy, international development and human rights.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle), the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, wanted to be present, as he is responsible for that area. He has asked me to pass on his good wishes to my right hon. Friend. Important parliamentary commitments abroad prevent him from attending the debate, but he spoke in the previous debate on Peru and set out clearly the Government's position. In his speeches both in Parliament and publicly, he has expressed the Government's concerns about the situation in that country.
220WH
The speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Dr. Turner) was better than any Foreign Office brief that any Minister could receive, and was peppered by personal recollections that none of us could really gain from official visits. His insights, and those of my right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Chryston, help me to assess the situation and help my colleagues in the Foreign Office to consider future policy directions.
One matter was the subject of all contributions to the debate, including those from my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall), and the hon. Members for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) and for Winchester (Mr. Oaten), who made his usual succinct speech. There were serious irregularities in the process leading up to the presidential and congressional elections held earlier this year. My right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Chryston and the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross), who monitored the first round of voting in April, rightly drew attention to those problems, as have missions from the Organisation of American States, the Carter Centre, the Electoral International Reform Services and our European Union partners.
I assure my right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Chryston that my colleagues in the European Union are considering the matter carefully, but no decision has been made about a monitoring group that might attend the next elections. The EU, because of its historical connections with that part of the world, considers those matters carefully, and my right hon. Friend's comments and those of other hon. Members will be brought to the attention of the relevant Commissioner and other member states.
There are doubts about the constitutional propriety of President Fujimori's decision to stand for a third successive term. After the controversial—to judge from the descriptions of the voting procedures, the term is a lame one—second-round voting system, we have heard disturbing accounts of Congress men being bribed to defect to the governing party and other such stories. We are aware of those issues, so we welcomed the decision of the OAS Foreign Ministers in Windsor, Ontario on 4–6 June to help the Peruvians re-energise their democracy. A list of 29 points was drawn up. Eduardo Latorre, the former Foreign Minister of the Dominican Republic, who has already been mentioned, was appointed to oversee the task.
We also welcomed President Fujimori's announcement on 16 September that fresh presidential and congressional elections would be held, that there would be a thorough investigation of all bribery allegations, and that the national intelligence service would be de-activated. We remain concerned about the negative influence exercised by President Fujimori's former intelligence adviser, Vladimiro Montesinos, on the re-energising of the democracy. We have heard about the attempts to find out where he is, and are worried about the effect that his unexpected return on 23 October, after he had spent a month in Panama, could have on the situation in Peru. Whether through Sherlock Holmes or any of the methods being adopted by President Fujimori to find him, we hope that he will swiftly be located and brought before the Peruvian courts to face the charges against him.

221WH
We have also been encouraged by the determination of all parties in the OAS-sponsored talks not to allow recent events, including the return of Montesinos, to impede progress on the talks or for new elections. The democratisation process has inevitably had ups and downs. We are glad that the representatives of the Government and Opposition appear to have agreed on the constitutional changes needed to reduce the current presidential and congressional mandates to one year, and to permit fresh elections in 2001. It is also encouraging that a specific date for those elections—8 April—is likely to be formally announced in the next few days. We shall watch the situation carefully, but I know that the announcement will please my right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Chryston and other hon. Members.
We urge the Peruvian Government and Opposition representatives to show flexibility and moderation, with a view to ensuring real progress towards democracy on the basis of the 29 points. We hope that special emphasis will be placed on ensuring that the playing field of the election in April 2001 will be much more level than that of the previous election. That especially means that all parties and candidates must have equitable access to the media, and that the reform of electoral and judicial authorities is ensured.
The British Government will continue to support efforts to aid the democratic process through expertise funded by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Department for International Development. I appreciate what was said about my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development and the work of her Department by my right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Chryston. Given his background in international development, it was real praise. We want free, fair and transparent elections and to ensure that Peru moves forward. As the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham said, we have come a long way, but there is further to travel before the people of Peru feel that they can have the Government whom they deserve.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We now move to the next debate.

Swine Fever (Norfolk and Suffolk)
10.59 am
Mr. Keith Simpson:I am delighted to have the opportunity to bring this issue to the attention of the House, because the outbreak of swine fever in East Anglia on 8 August has had a crippling effect on pig farmers in Norfolk, Suffolk and Essex and a major impact on the local farming community.
I am delighted to be joined in the Chamber by my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard), my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Mr. Prior) and the hon. Members for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard) and for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson). Several other colleagues from the region cannot be present, although farms in their areas have been affected, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) and my hon. Friends the Members for Central Suffolk and Ipswich, North (Mr. Lord)—a Deputy Speaker—for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring), for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) and for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Ruffley). Many of them have been in contact with the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and have received representations from pig farmers in their areas.
This swine fever outbreak is expected to cost the pig industry about £20 million. About 1,200 pig producers were trapped by the movement restrictions in Norfolk, Suffolk and Essex. It is calculated that they have lost about £4 million and bank borrowings are rising every day. The United Kingdom's largest pig producing company—BOCM Pauls—says that about £2 million is owed by producers in the surveillance zone. By any calculation, that is a massive potential indebtedness, which affects not only the pig producers, but the whole farming community in our area and has a knock-on effect on the entire local economy.
To put the crisis in perspective, let me give the figures that I obtained this morning. The Minister may have more up-to-date figures. About 175,000 pigs have been killed since 8 August—115,000 of them under the welfare scheme, which means that they were clean, healthy pigs. Other pigs have been killed on the farms. That is an enormous number. Nearly all the pigs killed under the welfare scheme were killed at an abattoir in my constituency.
Pig farmers and their families in our area have been devastated by the outbreak. Members of Parliament frequently lobby or make representations on behalf of their constituents. We are all guilty of using hyperbole at times, but those of us in the area know what an impact the outbreak has had. The men and women affected had already endured a pretty awful two and a half years. They were only just recovering from the downturn in the pig market. This spring, things were just beginning to pick up and now they have been hit again. For those whose pigs were directly affected, it has been a horror story. For hundreds of others, all sorts of restrictions have meant that they stand a chance of going out of business. Many have had to lay off workers and there is a deep feeling of helplessness.
All that has happened in a sector of farming that has, by any definition, adopted the highest standards of animal welfare and efficiency, certainly compared with most UK competitors. I am sure that we can all find

223WH
examples of pig farmers who do not meet those high standards. However, as the Minister said at the Meat and Livestock Commission breakfast, at which the national pig awards were made, Ministers accept that that sector of farming has been outstanding. Pig farmers are, therefore, depressed and angry. They look to politicians, in particular Ministers, for short-term remedies and long-term answers.
The crisis has been going on for three months. For almost all that time, Parliament has been in recess. Pig farmers in East Anglia, the local community, the media and all MPs have been frustrated at being unable to question Ministers and hold them to account. Comments are often made about the relevance of Parliament today, the fact that it has been sidelined and that Members of Parliament simply draw a large salary and do not do much else. However, it has been brought home to me and many colleagues this summer that when Parliament is not sitting, not only constituents but Members of Parliament are frustrated by not being able to get answers from Ministers. When Parliament is not sitting there is, strangely, a democratic deficit.
Dr. Ian Gibson: Would the hon. Gentleman concede that Baroness Hayman paid four visits and met pig producers in Norfolk and Suffolk in the recess?
Mrs. Gillian Shephard: It is indeed the case that the Minister of State in the other place has her second home in my constituency. On two occasions she found it possible to visit a single farmer on her way home. The visits were carried out in extreme secrecy, as the press were not informed until afterwards. At the beginning of the outbreak, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I say this for the clarification of the House—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Frank Cook): Order. We are already stretching the rules by having one intervention on another. I should hate to allow an intervention to become a speech.
Mr. Simpson: Obviously you understand, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that feelings are running high. I shall return shortly to ministerial responsibility, but the hon. Member for Norwich, North raised the matter. I am speaking not only as a Conservative Member, but on behalf of many pig farmers who have suggested to me that the ministerial appearances have been like drawing teeth. Indeed, at the first appearance, the Minister in the other place was going to a small meeting near Bury St. Edmunds when she was effectively forced to come to a large meeting to hear the views of several hundred pig farmers. That is well recognised.
Mr. David Prior: Does my hon. Friend also recognise that not only have Ministers failed to visit the area properly, they have failed to answer correspondence? I have written three times to the Minister and I have not had one reply.
Mr. Simpson: My hon. Friend makes a good point. I shall give an example in a few minutes.
After taking into account all the external extenuating circumstances surrounding the outbreak of swine fever, people in Norfolk, Suffolk and, until recently, Essex,
224WH
have felt let down by Ministers. Since 8 August, I have been asked continually when would the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food come to Norfolk and Suffolk to see the crisis for himself and to talk to pig farmers. It is no good the junior Minister coming four times. The right hon. Gentleman promised today at the national pig awards that he would come to East Anglia in the near future to have discussions with local pig farmers and others.
Colleagues from other parties will say that I am merely trying to make partisan political points, but this question has been put to me by a large number of pig farmers who may or may not vote for me. The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food promised at the Labour party conference on 28 September to come and find out at first hand by the time that Parliament met on 23 October. He has broken that promise. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition was able to attend a meeting on 17 October in Norfolk to hear the concerns of pig farmers. The failure of the responsible Cabinet Minister to come and see for himself bears directly on the anger and frustration felt by pig farmers and others that this attack of swine fever has not been handled well.
The first priority for everyone has obviously been to prevent the spread of swine fever and make certain that it is completely eradicated. However, pig farmers have asked me if the policy of Ministers and officials harmed that first priority. On behalf of the pig farmers in my constituency, I have some direct questions for the Minister of State, which I want her to answer now.
Welcome though the lifting of restrictions in Essex and Norfolk have been, to date 242 pig producers are involved and more than 1,000 are still locked in to restrictions. Pig farmers and the public want Ministers to answer the following questions. What was the cause of this outbreak of swine fever? Was it caused by a pig's consumption of infected material discarded by a member of the public? Was that source an infected pig product from outside the United Kingdom? If so, what action will the Minister take to curb illegal imports of meat products and to enforce higher standards of traceability and warranty on the importers of meat products so that the United Kingdom's standards are met and can be proven to be so?
Given the slow and at times chaotic response of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to the outbreak in the first few weeks, what operational procedures did MAFF have in place, based upon the previous swine fever outbreak in 1986? Will there be at least a Ministry assessment of lessons learned from the outbreak, so that if we are faced with a similar outbreak, procedures will be in place to deal with it?
Does the Minister believe that MAFF had, or still has, sufficient resources to cope with the outbreak? Farmers have given me countless examples. They are unable to get answers from MAFF, and there is order and counter order, with frequent changes of personnel. Even taking into account the fact that the outbreak happened in August, the chaos and confusion made it even more frustrating for pig farmers trying to get a common line from the Ministry.
There is particular anxiety about the time that it takes to obtain the results of blood tests on animals subject to movement—it took 27 days, on average, for results that should have been known within eight to 10 days. That puts an ever-greater strain on pig farmers.

225WH
The restrictions placed on the movement of pigs have led to gross overcrowding and suffering. Pig farmers are amazed that although MAFF claims that animal welfare is its responsibility, it closed the pig farms on 9 August but the welfare disposal scheme was not introduced until the end of that month. Is the Minister prepared to take responsibility for the serious decline in the standards of pig slaughter? Slaughterers are paid £1 per pig, and slaughtering consists mainly of shooting pigs with a 2.2 rifle with an enlarged bore, which, to say the least, is pretty bloody.
Has MAFF been constrained in its efforts to deal with the crisis by financial restrictions imposed by the Treasury? If MAFF had been able to extract £10 million to £15 million from the Treasury at the outset, many of the operational problems could have been met.
Finally, there is the matter of compensation, which is of great interest to pig farmers—and, I suspect, to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker—but is also the cause of great frustration to them. The laggard way in which the Ministry has responded to this crucial issue is seen by pig farmers, the wider farming community and people who live in rural areas as too little, too late. Pig farmers have never been subsidised and have been proud to stand on their own feet to meet the challenges of animal welfare, but the incomes of pig farmers caught up in the surveillance zone have collapsed, while their debts have mounted through no fault of their own. Indeed, they have had to find the funds to provide the necessary accommodation for the extra pigs crowded on to their farms, which they have been unable to move.
I remind the House that the Government first offered £35 for animals that weighed more than 60 kg and £10 for smaller pigs, despite the fact that the average cost of each pig lost would have been nearly £100. As a result of pressure from the farming community, the media and politicians. Ministers were then forced to offer £50 plus an additional £15 levy.
For a month, Ministers have been considering a revised compensation scheme suggested by the National Pig Association. No reply was received. The House may be interested to know that at the breakfast attended by some of us this morning, courtesy of the Meat and Livestock Commission—it was to celebrate British pig products and bestow the National Pig Association award—I was told that the Minister of State rather than the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food was expected to make the award. However, in the event, the Minister appeared and made a statement—not to the House, but to the National Pig Association—accepting a revised scheme of compensation. My colleagues and I have not yet had a chance to study the details, but any refinement is welcome. It would have been more appropriate if the right hon. Gentleman had made a statement to the House. That, after all, is what Mr. Speaker has been saying in the past fortnight. I am not making a nit-picking parliamentary point; it is important because of the parliamentary deficit of the past three months. Although the revised scheme is welcome in general terms, the farming community and politicians on both sides will want to examine it in detail.
The crucial point for the Minister is that when the compensation will be paid is as important as how much. Initially, the National Pig Association believed that as a
226WH
result of legal and financial problems, the first payments would not be made until spring 2001. It is no exaggeration to say that if we have to wait that long and the banks are unwilling to wait, the pig industry in East Anglia will face considerable collapse. I welcome the revised scheme, but there is a need for much greater honesty and clarity.
The past three months have been a disaster for our pig farmers. They are frustrated and angry and feel that Ministers and MAFF, having displayed lethargy and a lack of grip, lie behind the crisis. The Minister of State will doubtless say that she was working hard throughout August, September and October, which is partly true. Other questions must be asked, and pig farmers in my area do not gain that impression.
It was a mistake for the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food not to have visited our area within a few weeks to listen to pig farmers and show that he was, as he claimed, directing the situation from Whitehall. The right hon. Gentleman is in danger of being regarded, without too much hyperbole, as a caricature of a first world war general—"I feel your pain and I am dealing with the paperwork". The Minister of State is shaking her head, but if she visited my constituency and met some pig farmers, she would find that that was so. I urge the right hon. Gentleman to fulfil the pledge that he gave at the Labour party conference and again this morning—to come to Norfolk and Suffolk, meet pig farmers and understand the extent of the crisis. If a financial package is not introduced quickly, a large part of our pig industry will be destroyed, with enormous knock-on effects on the farming community. He owes it to the pig farmers, their families and the wider farming communities of Norfolk and Suffolk.
11.18 am
Mr. Alan Hurst: I am pleased to speak in this important debate. I represent an Essex division, which comes within two miles of the Suffolk border, so I hope that I shall be forgiven for intervening. Parts of my constituency have been subject to the restricted zones and, in any event, the ancient kingdom of Essex used to stretch into Suffolk. I am therefore qualified to speak.
I shall not go down the route of discussing second homes, correspondence and breakfasts. I am sorry that I did not attend the breakfast this morning, as I am not certain what was announced about the revised compensation scheme. That shows the disadvantage of political meetings so early in the day. However, from what the hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson) said, I gather that the scheme may be along the lines of that advocated by the National Pig Association.
In many ways, this outbreak is more severe than what happened in 1986 because it comes on the back of probably the greatest depression in agriculture since the 1930s. It is the greatest depression that the pig-farming sector has faced within farming living memory and it is the one depression on top of the other that has made the crisis so acute in the eastern counties. Let us briefly consider the crisis that pig farming has suffered in the past two to three years. The price of pigmeat has fallen from the top price of 140p per kilo to way down below the perceived break-even figure of 90-odd pence per kilo.
The reasons why such a situation has come about are manifold. The ubiquitous argument about the strength of the pound comes into it, as does the argument about

227WH
the extra costs that the sector has borne with regard to the well-advanced and well-received welfare standards that our pig sector introduced way ahead of many of our competitors. There may have been a misjudgment on the back of the BSE crisis—in that more consumers would switch to pigmeat away from beef. That did not occur on the scale that was anticipated. In any event, owing to the strength of the pound we were not able to take advantage of contracting the Danish or Dutch shares of our domestic market. All those problems existed in any event and those of us who represent pig farming constituencies will know that the industry has been in severe crisis for some time.
The problem amounts to a tragedy of almost Shakespearian proportions. Classical swine fever came along at the very moment that the corner was being turned, when the price was rising and edging up towards £1 per kilo and when there was a streak of hope about what had been a bleak prospect. Pig farmers in my constituency understand that the industry has not been subsidised for many years for various historical reasons. I do not think that they want the industry to be subsidised. We are in a unique situation in that the industry has received a double blow, which requires a broader view to be taken of what might be possible. There was a real risk beyond what we are facing now—that confidence in the product would have been undermined. I was most grateful to learn from the various radio shows that I listen to while driving around my constituency that the disease poses no danger to humans. Fortunately, for once, there has been no irresponsible scaremongering. It has been accepted that the disease cannot threaten humans and, consequently, the price of pigmeat has remained steady and on an upward position, as it was throughout the summer.
I shall not go into the more polemical parts of the speech of the hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk. That is for Opposition Members to do and for my right hon. Friend the Minister to resist. I certainly can say, however, that she has replied to my entreaties in correspondence within a relatively short time. I am a supporter of the scheme that has been advanced by the National Pig Association: that compensation should take the form of a headage payment. There should be a sliding scale based on the weight of the pig. I do not know the figures that were announced today, but £12 per head and 55p per kilo have been advanced. That seems an eminently sensible way in which to proceed.
As for the industry levies, they should be introduced in good times to provide an insurance fund for bad times. These are bad times in pig farming, and difficult times to collect such a levy. I understand the Ministry's trepidation that the fund may not yield what is predicted and that the £15 may not be paid. The Ministry may take a chance, if it is allowed to do so by the Comptroller and Auditor General, and advance the money on the basis that other matters will fall into place and the levy can be collected.
There is a case, however, for taking a longer term view about the possibility of a levy to be used as a fund against future outbreaks of swine fever or other diseases. One pig farmer in my area mentioned the outbreak of another disease some years ago. He asked me whether the levy that was made then had all been paid out. I have yet to ascertain the facts and ask my right hon. Friend the Minister of State to inquire further
228WH
about it. A longer term levy at an appropriate rate, that could be adjusted in bad times and increased in good ones, may be an appropriate answer to the problem.
It does not help, during the current agricultural crisis, to make party political points. The problems for those involved in the industry are so severe that they will want to hear about the steps being taken that will benefit them now and in the long term. My right hon. Friend the Minister is sympathetic to the position in which the pig sector finds itself, so I hope to hear a positive and progressive response from her.
11.26 am
Mrs. Gillian Shephard: I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson) on securing the debate. As he says, the difficulties and problems suffered by the pig industry in our constituencies since the end of July have been compounded by the fact that we have been unable to get comments or facts from the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. This debate has provided us with our first opportunity to confront Ministers with the problems that our constituents have suffered since the end of July—for that, thanks be to Parliament.
I congratulate my hon. Friend also on the comprehensive way in which he covered not only the unfolding of a situation that brought many farmers in my constituency near to ruin, but the problems that remain. The hon. Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst) added some pertinent points, which may not have referred precisely to Norfolk and Suffolk, but which showed that his heart is with us.
We are all pleased that the outbreak was contained. Local farmers, with whom I have been in constant touch since the end of July, appreciated the regular briefings that they received from vets and other officials. When the emergency operation centre at Bury St. Edmonds was set up, farmers found that they could approach it with some ease. Of course, we have not had such an outbreak for 14 years. We all—producers, the Opposition, Ministers and Ministry officials—hoped that there would be no need to introduce arrangements for dealing with this difficult notifiable disease. However, it is also true that the machine had to cranked up—vets had to be brought in not only from other areas but from other countries. One wonders what might have happened had there been an outbreak in Cornwall or Devon—thank goodness, there was not—that could not have been managed from the same operations centre at Bury St. Edmonds.
Dr. Gibson: Will the right hon. Lady consider being more positive about the action taken over the outbreak? The BSE crisis extended across the country, but the actions taken in this instance prevented an extremely infectious virus from spreading from Norfolk and Suffolk to other parts of the United Kingdom, so compliments are due. I remind hon. Members of Baroness Hayman's visit to pig producers, from whom she brought extremely positive answers back to the Ministry.
Mrs. Shephard: Obviously the hon. Gentleman did not listen to what I said, as he was preparing his question

229WH
instead. I had just said that we were all pleased that the outbreak was contained, and that farmers appreciated the briefings from officials and others.
Dr. Gibson: I missed that.
Mrs. Shephard: Yes. Such measures were appreciated, and I took the trouble to write to the Minister in the other place at the beginning of the outbreak to make the point.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Norfolk painted a telling picture of the outbreak's devastating local effect on agriculture and the rural economy. I shall be brief, but I want to underline some of what he said. The financial effects of the outbreak must be set against a background in which, according to the Eastern Daily Press of 18 September, local farm incomes have fallen 50 per cent. since 1996. The figures are taken from a report by Larking Gowen, a Norwich-based firm of accountants, and it is pointed out that farmers in East Anglia currently earn less than the statutory minimum wage. That also underlines the point made by the hon. Member for Braintree, who said that the pig industry was hardly in a happy situation before the outbreak.
That figure—farm incomes falling by 50 per cent. in the past four years—was calculated before the financial effects of the swine fever outbreak or the Government's fuel tax policies had been taken into account. The Ministry will be aware that, before the outbreak, the pig industry was only starting to recover from its own crisis and survived thanks to the determination and good husbandry of producers involved. Although farmers certainly appreciated the co-operation and helpfulness of officials at the containment centre in Bury St. Edmunds, farmers themselves should be congratulated. They showed great responsibility by complying with requests made to them in containing the disease, despite the heavy financial effects that those requests imposed on them.

Owing to the regulations imposed by surveillance zones and movement restrictions, the impact on cash flow for farmers whose livestock has not suffered from the disease has been devastating. Neville Kemp, a constituent of mine from East Harling, expressed the problem at a farmers' meeting on 17 October, saying, as reported in the Eastern Daily Press of 21 October:
When this outbreak happened some 10 weeks ago, no one could have anticipated the mayhem that this was going to cause. The whole thing has been a catalogue of disaster.
We are three km from the original infected site. We've not had swine fever but have suffered from the consequences of it.
Our cashflow stopped 10 weeks ago—and it has cost the business in the order of £25,000 a week because pigs could not be moved off and sold.
The report continues to explain:
Pigs have been put into the welfare disposal scheme with over-finished pigs fetching £50 per head or a fraction of their value.
Mr Kemp said that the impact of being forced to keep larger numbers of pigs on the farm resulted in much higher pig mortality.
There have been gross problems of animal welfare. Mr. Kemp said that pig mortality,
went from five per cent overall to nearly 28 per cent at the peak when we were keeping pigs in barns where they shouldn't have been.
230WH
All we could do was to keep piling these pigs up. I'm not alone. There are hundreds who are in the same situation.
Another farm in my constituency that has been adversely affected is the old, established farm Pilgrim's of Banham, which has calculated that its loss over the period amounts to £168,461. That is the most extraordinary loss to expect a company to bear and survive. It is a matter not only for pig producers but for the rural economy. The knock-on effects if such a company had to cease trading would be felt in employment and haulage, by suppliers and throughout the rural economy, which is already suffering because of fuel tax and other difficulties.
At the beginning of the outbreak, the Minister of State in the other place attended a meeting of producers, despite much reported hesitation. It has been difficult to hear by rumour that she has visited on other occasions and for us to be unable to meet her because her meetings with individual farmers have been reported only after the event.
Despite repeated invitations, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has been notable by his absence. He has apparently been unable to reply to letters from colleagues. I was interested to hear that the hon. Member for Braintree had received replies to his letters. Clearly he was wise to address them to the Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Ms Quin). The matter is not trivial, because we are trying to help producers and answer their questions. I was driven to tabling a parliamentary question as soon as the House returned to ask when I might receive a reply to my letter to the Minister of 31 August. I had one of those wonderful replies that told me that he would answer as soon as possible. Today, the day of the debate—what magic, the power of Parliament again—I received a letter from the Minister, although it took four days to arrive from Smith square, which must be something to do with the rain. It is of course dated after 31 August. It did not arrive until 1 November, but it is dated 27 October. A terrific mystery is involved. As my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Norfolk said, the Minister promised to visit on 28 September, but regrettably he has not done so. Earlier today he again promised to do so, and it will be welcome if he manages to fit a visit to that hard-pressed area into his equally hard-pressed diary.
Many unanswered questions remain. The Minister made an announcement at the Meat and Livestock Commission meeting this morning. I do not know whether he should have made it to Parliament, but had he done so we would have been able to question him on the content and the point of it. We shall not have the same opportunity today with the Minister of State, because her contribution comes at the end of the debate. However, I shall ask her some questions now that relate to the legislative arrangements necessary to bring into force the compensation package, which will include a levy from the industry.
I understand, and expect the Minister to confirm, that legislation will be necessary to bring into force the levy from the industry. When is that due to be considered and when will it come into force? Will the levy cover all notifiable diseases and any human-health related diseases, as producers have apparently been told? The eastern region chairman of the National Pig Association

231WH
has written to the Minister about that, but naturally has not received a reply. The right hon. Lady will be able to tell us this morning.
Does the agreement of the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly have to be obtained? If so, is that likely to be forthcoming given that there has been no trace of the disease in those parts of Britain? Given the uncertainties of the timing and availability of the levy, do the banks accept it as a bankable proposition? Is it fair that pig farmers have to bail themselves out because, as they believe, a consignment of pork reached this country illegally from abroad and caused the disease? What responsibility do the Government take? The pig industry clearly needs answers and it needs them fast.
I hope that the Minister will be able to enlarge on the announcement made elsewhere this morning by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. As far as one can tell, there seems to have been some restructuring of the compensation arrangements but it was not clear whether additional money is to be provided for compensation and what the ceiling for compensation per animal is to be. It is welcome that the right hon. Gentleman has listened to concerns about the structuring of the compensation from the industry, but there are other questions. The Ministry will have to think about the implications of consequential losses that result from this kind of disease. The worst losses have been incurred by those whose herds have not had the disease. That is the point. The Ministry must take account of that. According to veterinary sources, climate change is likely to bring about more unusual and unexpected outbreaks of disease. The Ministry will have to come to grips with the question of consequential loss.
I am grateful finally to have had the chance to put these concerns directly to a Minister. The right hon. Lady will answer them conscientiously—that is her reputation and that is how she always responds. However, I cannot emphasise enough the disappointment and sense of let-down felt by pig producers because of the lack of ministerial response at a time when their livelihoods are tumbling down around their ears.
11.42 am
Mr. David Prior: It is a great honour to follow two excellent speeches by my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard) and my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson) who have covered many of the issues that I wanted to raise this morning. We all know that the pig industry is a roller coaster. Prices go up and down from great extremes. The difference in the past three years has been that until very recently prices have been stuck at an incredibly low level. For about three years the pig industry has been on its uppers and unlike any other sector of agriculture in this country it receives no subsidies. The situation has been made worse for pig producers because they have to compete with imports that do not have to comply with the same high hygiene and welfare standards as our pigs. Our pig industry has not been supported by the degree of honesty in labelling that could have been expected.
The past three years have been extremely difficult. Farmers with mixed farms have had little joy in other parts of agriculture, with wheat at £55 a tonne and sugar
232WH
beet down to £27 a tonne. There is great uncertainty about the future of the sugar regime, allied to the fact that the cost of fuel has been rising steeply. The cost of ammonium nitrates and other chemicals has meant that the farming industry has been going through a crisis and a depression the extent of which is unmatched, certainly in my lifetime, and probably not seen since the 1920s and 1930s. The fact that swine fever came on top of that was the last straw for many producers, so it has had a disproportionate effect.
The impact on individual families involved in the pig industry has largely been one of cash flow. Their sole source of income stopped. As my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk said, many pig farmers have received no money at all for some 10 weeks. A typical farm with about 300 sows receives a regular income of £10,000 and that income has just stopped. The problem has caused a great deal of hardship. Barclays bank estimates that the level of indebtedness of pig farmers in Norfolk and Suffolk increased by £2 million during August and September. The impact of the problem has been felt not only by the pig farmers, but by their suppliers, the feedstuff suppliers, other related industries and by the pigs themselves. Figures show that pig mortality in some herds has increased from 5 per cent. to nearly 30 per cent. The implications of dealing with that level of mortality are horrendous for the men involved.
What has been the Government's reaction to the problem? I have tried to get in touch with the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food since the end of August, but I have not yet received a reply. My right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk received a letter from him today, but I have received no communication at all. To me, as a Member of Parliament, that shows a lack of interest and understanding and it is absolutely disgraceful. What am I supposed to tell my constituents who work in the pig industry? Their livelihoods are severely compromised, but the Minister cannot even be bothered either to visit them or to reply to correspondence. It is a disgrace.
The Government will have to come up with a lot of answers about the handling of the dispute. Why is the testing for swine fever taking almost a month, when it could be done in 10 days? Why has it taken so long to kill the confirmed units? Why are there stories of dead pigs being left overnight with crows and foxes feeding on them, spreading disease?
Mrs. Shephard: Reports in my constituency have circulated about dead pigs being left in fields for far longer than overnight. Apparently, they have been left for four days, and carrion seekers have pecked at the bodies and carried the disease heaven knows where.
Mr. Prior: I have heard stories about dead pigs being left for more than 24 hours, but obviously four days is much worse than that. The story about the 24 hours happened in the Quidenham zone, where literally hundreds of pigs were left in a heap overnight. As my right hon. Friend said, they are a prey to carrion. One of the problems in Norfolk and Suffolk has been the great expansion in outdoor pigs over the past five to 10 years, partly in response to welfare regulations. It has made the containment of the disease that much more difficult.

233WH
The compensation package should have been designed to contain the disease as much as possible. It has clearly not done that. Had farmers been irresponsible, there would have been a tremendous incentive to contract the disease and claim full compensation or to shift pigs out of containment zones before they were announced by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. It is only because pig farmers have taken an incredibly responsible attitude to the problem that the containment and restriction zones have worked. There has been an incentive for farmers to keep pigs weighing more than 100 kg. That has resulted in the welfare problems that we have discussed and has cost the Government more. It would have been much better had farmers put smaller pigs into the scheme without suffering a financial penalty. Perhaps the Minister of State will say something about that when she replies to the debate because the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food may have changed the compensation rules.
Will the Minister of State explain what happened in Holland? When the same problem arose there, what compensation was made available to its pig farmers? I have been told that that the compensation programme was much more generous and, instead of simply including a profit element, compensated farmers for the full cost of production. It would have amounted to about £100 for a 100 kg pig.
The Government will need to answer many questions. They have been fortunate that the disease has not spread further because there is nothing in the compensation scheme to prevent that from happening. Many farmers feel bitter and upset that the Government have not been prepared even to visit them, let alone answer their questions, so I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.
11.49 am
Mr. Colin Breed: I add my congratulations to the hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson) on raising this issue and on his miraculous timing. The debate is taking place only hours after the Minister's important statement at breakfast this morning.
I agree with many hon. Members that pig farmers are a special breed of people. I say that from one Breed to another. In recent years, they have complied with everything that has been thrust on them. They cooperated almost immediately with the stall and tether bans, investing huge sums of money to comply with them. They grappled with meat and bone meal feed and high abattoir charges, which were not their fault, but due to BSE.
Having ensured that their industry met welfare and health standards, pig farmers were subjected to perhaps the ultimate insult of seeing imported meat re-labelled as if it were British. A couple of weeks ago, we heard about a farmer from Honiton in Devon who was effectively acting as a trading standards officer, because he identified a product in Tesco as wrongly labelled. After complying so quickly and efficiently with everything that was asked of them after this outbreak of classical swine fever, pig farmers feel, not unnaturally, rather disappointed that the compensation and the way in which things have gone have not helped them much.
234WH
I welcome the Minister's announcement this morning that the Government have accepted the industry's compensation package. I suspect that there are many lessons to be learned from the Phillips report on BSE, but one is that compensation has a significant effect on the motivation and intention of farmers who receive it. Part of the problem with BSE was that the compensation package changed and did not compensate farmers fully. If the pig farmers had not responded so magnificently, this outbreak might have been more significant.
The compensation package lacks one final aspect, which shows the way in which the Ministry views BSE and classical swine fever. Almost everything has to do with timing, which in commercial terms manifests itself in cash flow. There is a relentless rise in borrowing from the bank, because of lack of income. That places various additional costs on top of interest and banking costs and the inability to pay bills. There is a knock-on effect throughout the sector.
Although a compensation package has been announced, people fear that it may not secure for the industry all the benefits that it should, mainly because of timing. An important element is the levy payment of 20 per cent. from the industry, which must be collected at a time when things are difficult, processed and paid out. That 20 per cent. may not be available for many months, yet the industry has major cash flow problems.
I hope that the Minister will respond positively to the idea of what in banking is called a bridging loan. Farmers could receive that portion of the compensation more quickly. The MLC could pay it out and repay the Treasury later when it has collected it. The securing of compensation payments will be a key element in the industry's continued success after this disastrous episode. However, there are lessons to be learned and, as we have found from the Phillips report, they are wide and many. I have a few questions in addition to those that other hon. Members have asked, many of which were on my lips too.
I want to raise the issue of pre-planning. We heard this morning that the pig industry had changed significantly since the previous swine fever outbreak. That is true. In a commercial context, "what-if exercises can be carried out, to establish what would happen in certain circumstances. The Ministry should address itself to pre-planning for the relevant scenario, not least to ensure that with the new format of closed MAFF offices, other parts of the country will be equally well served if a similar outbreak occurs. Does the Ministry have a proper pre-planning exercise to ensure that swift action can be taken throughout the country?
Because the compensation package is new, a monitoring system will be necessary to ensure that all the appropriate needs are met and that the Ministry stays close to the situation. Many pig farmers are on the brink and they will be highly dependent on their business planning. They will need to ensure that compensation payments and their business plans in relation to the bank can be properly relied on and that the Ministry will provide the compensation package quickly.
The origin of the outbreak seems to have been in some imported infection. What closer scrutiny of imports is now being undertaken? What regulations are being tightened?

235WH
I have been thinking for some time, not least because of the problems of farming incomes generally and the way that prices have been driven down by supermarkets among other factors, that the value of mixed farming should be recognised. We seem to have departed from that. When farmers engaged in a variety of farming activities they were cushioned from the effects of a problem in one sector by their operations in another. We seem to have arrived at a stage of specialisation, be it in dairy, pigs or poultry, whereby farmers depend principally on one activity for their income. A problem in that sector affects them massively.
It is now being suggested that the industry should raise a levy or that other ways of providing compensation could be pursued. The greatest cushion for many businesses is the opportunity to derive income from a variety of sources, such as having customers in different places or engaging in different activities. There is certainly merit in examining the way in which over the years we have arrived at a way of farming so specialised that each sector is vulnerable.
Mrs. Shephard: I much appreciate the hon. Gentleman's thoughtful presentation. However, while undoubtedly over the years a steady concentration and specialisation of farming activities has taken place, at present every sector has taken a nose dive. The result is that even being in mixed farming—and many farmers are—is not much help.
Mr. Breed: That is also a thoughtful contribution, but in general terms it should be recognised that the stability of businesses depends on a wide customer and activity base. I hope that perhaps there will be some investigation of that line of thought, if only to eliminate it.
11.59 am
Mr. James Paice: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson) on obtaining the debate and the opportunity to question the Minister, and on the way in which he opened the debate. He clearly set out the state of affairs in the pig industry, in particular in Norfolk and Suffolk, although there are peripheral effects in Essex and, potentially, consequences for the rest of the country.
I am the only former pig farmer in the Chamber—and probably the only one in the House. My pig unit would have been in one of the restricted areas, so I come to the debate with some empathy for those who are so seriously caught up in the situation. As my hon. Friend said, the pig industry is not normally subsidised; however, it is not true that it has never been subsidised. At one time, it was subsidised to the tune of 50p a score—a now outdated measurement of pig weights. My hon. Friend will not be surprised to learn that that occurred in the late 1970s, under the previous Labour Government, because of the state of the industry.
As several hon. Members have said, this outbreak of swine fever follows two and a half years of serious losses. About 26 per cent. of the breeding herd in England has gone and, as has been emphasised, farmers have no reserves on which to call to carry them through the new crisis. Although the hon. Member for Braintree
236WH
(Mr. Hurst) chided my hon. Friends for being, as he put it, partisan over the issue, the music has for the moment stopped and we have these Ministers in charge of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. If there are criticisms of the way in which the situation has been handled, they should be made.
My right hon. and hon. Friends were justified in making an issue of the Minister's failure to visit the area—in such a crisis, one would have expected him to do so. There is evidence that farmers would prefer the organ grinder—I will not continue the analogy. The Minister told the meeting that was referred to earlier that he cancelled his holiday. That is a noble gesture, but not many farmers would believe that he had to sit in his office for the whole of August without being able to visit the area.
On 4 September, I wrote officially to the Minister on behalf of the Opposition and pointed out, among other issues, that the £66 million outgoers scheme announced by the Government at the end of March has still not been put in place and farmers have not received a penny of it. That potential cushion is still not available to farmers and probably will not be for several months. Hon. Members will not be surprised to learn that it took seven weeks for me to receive a reply, even to an official letter from the Opposition. The letter came from the Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Ms Quin), but was signed by her private secretary. Unfortunately, it did not even mention the outgoers scheme and, what is worse, it was factually incorrect in its references to the proposals of the National Pig Association. I shall return to that issue.
My first question to the right hon. Lady has to be when she expects the outgoers scheme to begin to deliver to farmers, who are in desperate need of that small extra support. Furthermore, will farmers who have been slaughtered out because of the swine fever outbreak and who have decided not to restock because they do not wish to continue pig farming also be eligible for the outgoers scheme?
As my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Norfolk said, around 170,000 pigs have so far been slaughtered under compulsory slaughtering and under the welfare scheme. Although the scheme is in the interests of welfare—I understand the reasons for that—the restriction orders create huge costs for the industry. Cash flow, to which the hon. Member for South-East Cornwall (Mr. Breed) referred, is crucial. Farmers have no cash flow for extra feed, labour and housing costs.
David Hodgetts of Barclays bank was present at the meeting that my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) attended. As reported in Farming News, Mr. Hodgetts told my right hon. Friend:
The average producer in restricted areas was losing up to £9,500 a week, and borrowings by East Anglian pig producers had risen by £2 million pounds.
Those are the words not of the politicians but of the bankers, which puts the matter into context. There is a temptation for farmers to hang on to their stock in the hope that restrictions can be lifted. That is not necessarily the best way forward, but it is a direct result of the fact that the compensation scheme was not properly structured.
The scheme on which the Government made an announcement this morning was submitted to them by the NPA almost a month ago. We may all question why

237WH
it has taken the Government so long to reach a decision; perhaps the Minister preferred to announce it on a platform rather than address the urgency of the situation. However, the Government have now decided to ask the industry to fund a levy. In passing, I say to the hon. Member for Braintree that a levy was raised on an earlier occasion during an occurrence of Aujeszky's disease that caused serious problems for the industry. There is still money outstanding from that levy, which the Government have failed to make available.
My right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard) referred to the legal procedures needed to get the levy in place, which will be long and drawn out. Consultations are going on, and the industry has already requested that the Government provide a bridging loan. I believe that they have refused to do that, but I ask the Minister to reconsider that decision. We are talking about only £2 million, which will be recouped through the levy and will make a great deal of difference. After all, it represents 20 per cent. of the compensation that will be available, according to new figures.
On the administration of the welfare scheme, among the articles that have come out of various discussions and meetings taking place in East Anglia is one from Farming News, written by Mr. Brian Rivett of Fakenham, in Norfolk. The author lists a catalogue of what might be called administrative overkill, which I shall not detain hon. Members by detailing. He refers to the fact that people count the pigs out and in again and, if there are any errors, go back to square one. More people are supervising the killing than doing it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Norfolk, supported by my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk, mentioned pigs that are left around at risk of carrion feeders, which could then spread the disease. Has a Minister or a senior official gone to watch the procedures and seen what is happening? There can be no smoke without fire and, although—Who knows—there may be some journalistic licence in those articles, there is almost certainly some truth behind them. I hope that the Government will respond to those matters.
I must refer, as others have, to the cause of the outbreak. From the letter placed in The Veterinary Record by Ministers' officials, it seems certain that it was caused when a pig in an outdoor unit ate an imported pork product. I believe that the unit has been identified. It is ironic that the supposedly more welfare friendly scheme in which pigs are kept outdoors may have been the cause of the infection, which has had such damaging consequences not only for farmers but for pig welfare. Clearly, pigs kept outdoors are more prone to scattered waste than those kept indoors.
The aspect of the letter placed by people from the State Veterinary Service in The Veterinary Record that most astonished me was the statement that the
most likely source of infection is thought to be an infected pork product. A review of legal imports has failed to reveal a potential source from the Far East. However illegal imports can occur and may include contaminated products.
That is clear and, unless there is more recent information, we assume that that is still the view of Ministry scientists and officials. I come now to the
238WH
question of how that position can arise. There could be only two sources of that illegal product: either an individual brought in a pork pie or a sandwich that contained pigmeat from the far east or the pigmeat was imported in an unprocessed form and turned into a pork pie or sandwich filling. I believe that the latter case is the most likely.
For the past three years, the Opposition have been challenging the Government about the quality of our imports and the control of standards. When the Food Standards Bill was considered in Committee, I tabled an amendment to ensure that the Food Standards Agency had the same controls over imports as it had over domestically produced food. At the time, the right hon. Lady's predecessor, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) said that the Food Standards Agency
will have all the powers that we now have for checking what is coming into the country. —[Official Report, Standing Committee B,15 July 1999; c. 334.]
Well, if the agency has such powers, they are not being applied satisfactorily. If the very serious outbreak of the disease in East Anglia was by illegally imported foodstuffs, what else is being imported illegally into this country that might have even more serious and far-reaching consequences for animal or human health? I hope that the right hon. Lady will now do as some of my hon. Friends have suggested and tell us what the Government are doing to improve dramatically the quality of control over imported food. We cannot continue to have such problems.
The catalogue of delay and indecision by the Government has made matters worse. There has been little criticism of how the control of the disease has been managed by the officials of the State Veterinary Service and others, but there is plenty of evidence to show that the decision-making process and the delays have caused more serious consequences for pig producers than would otherwise have been the case.
The hon. Member for South-East Cornwall referred to the Phillips report, which cost £32 million. One of the clear lessons that has been learned from the report is that one has to make timely decisions and make them urgently on the best advice that is available at the time. The record of the past three months has not shown that the Government have learnt from the report. Ministry vets have taken admirable action, but there has been woeful inactivity by Ministers. Although the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food parrots his concerns, and did so again this morning, in his understanding and warm, emollient style, he and the Government will be judged on the way in which they have delivered results to the farmers.
My right hon. and hon. Friends have posed some questions this morning and I have added to them. The Minister of State now has a certain amount of time to answer them. They have not been made up by us; they are being asked by pig producers throughout East Anglia, who are suffering seriously from the outbreak. I hope that the right hon. Lady will now seek to redeem the Minister in the eyes of the farmers and produce some results so that they can begin to see a way forward.
12.13 pm
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Ms Joyce Quin): We have had an important debate this morning and I shall try to respond

239WH
to as many of the points that have been raised as I possibly can. I completely understand the concern and the depth of feeling that right hon. and hon. Members have expressed about the plight of the pig industry in their constituencies. I do not accept some of the comments that were made about ministerial approaches to the situation, which I shall outline shortly. Nor do I accept the charge that procedures have been slow, chaotic or confused. That is not the case, but I recognise the depth of concern expressed by right hon. and hon. Members about the problem. After two difficult years faced by the pig industry, the situation has rightly been described as serious and tragic.
First, I shall explain the nature of classical swine fever. Secondly, I shall summarise the steps taken by the Ministry to control and eradicate the outbreak in East Anglia. Thirdly, I shall deal with pig welfare issues and the steps adopted by the Government to help farmers to cope with them. In addressing those three elements, I shall endeavour to respond to issues raised by the hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson) and other hon. Members from all political parties.
As hon. Members know, classical swine fever is a highly infectious and contagious viral disease, which can result in very high mortality rates. It occurs worldwide, but until this year there has been no outbreak in this country since 1986. Several hon. Members mentioned the 1986 outbreak this morning.
The disease cannot spread to humans—well known to hon. Members, but an important message for the wider public who may be following the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst) mentioned attempts by radio broadcasters and others to disseminate that crucial public safety information. The Food Standards Agency has advised that classical swine fever poses no risk to consumers.
Procedures for controlling classical swine fever are set out in European Union legislation. All pigs on holdings where the disease is evident must be killed and destroyed. The carcases of all slaughtered pigs in East Anglia have been destroyed by rendering. Movement controls must be imposed within a minimum of a 10 km radius of each infected holding to prevent the spread of the disease. Hon. Members have understandably pointed out the contrast between farmers whose holdings are infected and those whose holdings are subject to the restrictions arising from the surveillance and wider measures in the area. I shall endeavour to deal with both elements in my response.
The source of the infection must be investigated and, where possible, identified. The extent of the spread must also be established. Controls cannot be lifted until the competent authority is satisfied that infection is no longer present in the zone. Let me assure the House that in dealing with the present outbreak, we have scrupulously followed European Union rules.
The current outbreak started on 8 August with a confirmed case of classical swine fever on a holding in Suffolk. All pigs on the holding were slaughtered, and pig movements to and from the holding were traced. These tracings led to a number of other confirmed cases and to further movement restrictions.
Various comments were made about the source of the infection. Investigations suggest that the original infection was introduced in early June to a breeding unit
240WH
in Norfolk. Infection then appears to have spread to four pig-rearing premises through the movement of infected weaned pigs. Lateral spread appears to have taken place from one of these to two neighbouring holdings. Others were infected either by the movement of infected pigs or by the movement of vehicles or people.
The first priority of the State Veterinary Service, and of Ministers, has been and remains to eradicate the disease. Protection zones of 3km were placed around all infected premises, within which initially any movement of livestock was prohibited. Wider zones have also been established, within which all farms with pigs are inspected and kept under surveillance. In total, classical swine fever has been confirmed on 15 premises during the outbreak: one in Essex, six in Suffolk and eight in Norfolk. Nearly 60,000 pigs have been slaughtered as infected or as dangerous contacts. The Essex outbreak has been dealt with and the surveillance zone around that outbreak was lifted on 22 September, as my hon. Friend the Member for Braintree recognised.
I am also glad to say that the zone around one of the Norfolk outbreaks, the breeding unit where the infection is thought to have originated, was lifted on 28 October. It is encouraging that there have been no new cases of classical swine fever since 4 October. Provided that we see no more, the State Veterinary Service hopes to lift the remaining zones by the end of November. One thing that unites us all here is our keenness to see that timetable implemented if at all possible.
Throughout the outbreak, veterinary investigations have been made more difficult by the fact that, in its early stages, classical swine fever looks similar to another pig disease known as PDNS—porcine dermatitis and nephropathy syndrome. The State Veterinary Service has, therefore, had to adopt a very cautious approach to ensure that PDNS was not masking swine fever before releasing holdings from restrictions.
So far, investigations have been unable to identify the precise origin of the virus that caused the present swine fever outbreak. Using molecular techniques the Veterinary Laboratories Agency at Weybridge has precisely typed the strain of swine fever virus responsible for all the confirmed cases in East Anglia. It is not the same strain as caused the much larger outbreak in the Netherlands in 1997. It may be of Asian origin, and may therefore be linked to imported meat products, but at the moment the exact route of its introduction remains uncertain.
Throughout the course of the outbreak, Ministers, the Chief Veterinary Officer and MAFF officials have been kept in close touch with representatives of the pig and meat industries and all other interested parties. My right hon. Friend the Minister met pig industry representatives on several occasions in August in the early stages of the outbreak. My noble Friend Baroness Hayman visited the area on four occasions to meet pig farmers and see the problems for herself. As she is the Minister with responsibility for animal health it was entirely appropriate for her to fulfil that role.
Officers of the State Veterinary Service, including the Chief Veterinary Officer, have also attended many local meetings of pig farmers in East Anglia to keep them

241WH
informed of progress. Indeed the Chief Veterinary Officer was in Diss two days ago when he made the important announcement about the timetable that we hoped to implement for the remaining areas. That was welcomed by the industry in East Anglia. Indeed, contacts have been invaluable in ensuring that Government and industry have worked together to eradicate the disease. I should like to join with other hon. Members who have paid tribute, as the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) did, to the work of the State Veterinary Service and veterinary officials. Other hon. Members pointed out the responsible attitude of pig farmers in the areas concerned. I concur with those remarks and am happy to endorse them.
We have also put in place a helpline for farmers, and information is provided by Ceefax and on the website of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. We have made great efforts to keep farmers as informed as possible, to help them through the difficulties caused by the outbreak.
Several hon. Members referred to animal welfare and related problems. I accept the fact that existing regulations provide more compensation for those on infected premises than those caught in the surveillance zones. For that reason, in learning lessons from the outbreak, it is important to do what we can to set up a long-term system so that the discrepancy does not recur. Previous Governments have not attempted such a system, but I hope that we can try to find a long-term solution. The hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk talked about the importance of short-term measures, and of the longer term. I agree. We have taken effective short-term measures, but the Government and the industry are keen to tackle the long-term issue together. I hope to talk about that shortly.
Obviously, the movement restrictions that had to be introduced to control the outbreak of swine fever pose severe economic problems for the farms affected. When animals cannot be sold or moved from premises as planned, accommodation or space needs to be found for an increasing volume of them. Careful management of farms is needed to avoid overstocking and the consequent increased risks of poor welfare and disease.
On 29 August, the Government introduced the pig welfare disposal scheme to deal with the potential welfare problems, in recognition of the exceptional circumstances affecting pig producers because of the movement restrictions required to eradicate the outbreak of swine fever. The measures are important. Several hon. Members referred to the outbreak of classical swine fever in 1986, in which there were 10 confirmed cases, but no compensation was paid other
242WH
than that for pigs slaughtered. There was no animal welfare scheme of the kind that the Government have introduced.
We also introduced the scheme reasonably quickly. The hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire understandably referred to some of the frustrations involved in achieving European clearance for the pig industry restructuring scheme. Part of our motivation for bringing in the animal welfare disposal scheme was that we could get it up and running quickly. It was therefore frustrating for me to be charged with "chaos, slowness and delay" when we wanted to work with the industry to give some relief and support to farmers whose premises were not infected, but who were caught up in the wider surveillance measures.
As of the end of October, 134,000 pigs had been offered to the scheme and claims worth £4.1 million had been submitted for payment. That money is substantially in excess of that paid out in the 1986 outbreak.
Mr. Keith Simpson: Obviously, because of the time restrictions, the Minister will be unable to answer all the many questions asked. Will she assure us that her officials will answer those questions as soon as possible, so that we can pass the answers to our constituents?
Ms Quin: I am more than happy to give that assurance. When I saw that I had 15 minutes in which to reply, I knew that I would not be able to deal with every question. In no sense do I want to try to avoid them; we have good answers to them.
I was taken to task about correspondence. I am fairly certain that I remember signing a letter to the hon. Gentleman who raised the issue. However, if having read that reply he wants to pursue further issues with me, he can do so.
I hope that the modification to the scheme that my right hon. Friend the Minister announced at the Meat and Livestock Commission breakfast this morning will be welcome. It has been worked out with the industry. It is not a change of policy or a new scheme but a modification to the rate of the existing scheme, which was why my right hon. Friend the Minister felt that he could tell the industry this morning. It was not the sort of statement that it would, as hon. Members said, have been necessary to present to Parliament. It is simply a modification of an existing scheme.
As promised, I shall endeavour to write to hon. Members about outstanding issues raised and I shall place copies in the Library. The Government have acted speedily to help farmers who have infected premises and who are outside the immediate infected area to ensure that the problem is tackled as speedily and effectively as possible.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. John McWilliam): Order. Time is up.

HMS Prince of Wales and HMS Repulse
12.30pm
Mr. Patrick Nicholls: On 10 December 1941, one of the Royal Navy's newest battleships, HMS Prince of Wales, and the battlecruiser HMS Repulse were sunk by Japanese torpedo bombers off the coast of Malaya. The loss of life was substantial: some 840 men perished. It was one of the critical naval actions of the 20th century, presaging the final dissolution of the British empire and ending European supremacy in the far east.
The attack took place within 72 hours of the attack on Pearl harbour, and it meant that the British and United States' maritime supremacy in the western Pacific was destroyed virtually at a stroke. Its effect on the morale of those defending Malaya and Singapore was devastating. If ever it could be said that a naval defeat had substantial consequences, this was surely the one.
In some ways, it all seems a long time ago. I am over the age of 50, and I did not fight in the war; I was not even born then. Equally, it would be common ground between us all here, including myself and the Minister, that the fact that we are here having this debate is due directly to the sacrifice of people such as those 840 men.
Although it is a long time ago to us, for some people the loss is every bit as poignant today as it was at the time, and it was thought that the site would be a final resting place for the men who died there. Such people include Shirley Ward, a senior staff reporter on the Mid-Devon Advertiser in Newton Abbot. Her father was Lt Horace Ward, the ordnance officer on HMS Repulse. His death was not the first tragic incident for the Ward family. Her uncle, Warrant Officer Roy Ward, had died when HMS Courageous was torpedoed off the coast of Ireland in the first days of the second world war. For some people, those memories remain fresh. Those who lost relatives, husbands, uncles, brothers or sons would have expected and hoped that the wrecks would remain the final and undisturbed resting place of their relatives and friends.
Sadly, it was not to be. Time will not allow me to describe the various depredations and spoliations that have taken place on the sites, but I can give a suggestion of them. There is substantial evidence of not simply minor pilfering of personal mementoes, but serious commercial plundering. I understand that some 8 tonnes of the port-side propellers of HMS Repulse have already been removed commercially, and some press reports, which I cannot verify today, suggest that the propellers on both sides may have been taken. There is no doubt that numerous personal belongings have also been lifted.
One of those who has campaigned hard on the issue, and I pay tribute to him for doing so, is Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, whose father was instrumental in having such sites designated war graves in the 1970s. I am indebted to Lord Clifford's briefing, which drew to my attention that Japan, a defeated and beaten nation, took steps immediately after the war to recover the bodies from the wrecks of their ships. That says something about how Japan regarded the sites. My attention has been drawn to a publication by an organisation called Scapa Flow Technical and John's Characters which shows that the MV Karin is available for dives on HMS
244WH
Repulse and HMS Prince of Wales. It states that the ships lie in shallow waters and an article written by one of the divers states:
On one of the excursions aft we see sinks in cabins as we look through the portholes, left open for escape now fallen in to the ship as the hinges pull clear, signs of human occupation with cups. etc. and a toilet, I feel that we are the first to see these things since that day in 1941.
The article continues:
The torpedo responsible ripped open a hole of about 8 m by 5 m. The sailors inside would have perished immediately, these places are now only patrolled by the fish.
The Press Association reported the comments of a survivor, Albert Burnell, about the spoliation of these wrecks. He said:
I loved my ship and still do. We lost a lot of brave men and they should be honoured and respected…You wouldn't have people taking handles off coffins, would you? Why is this any different?
It is not any different; indeed, it is worse. Some of the things that have been taken away amount not to taking the handles off coffins but to opening them and stripping the rings off fingers. That is the enormity of the matter that we are discussing, which Lord Clifford raised in the House of Lords as long ago as 1995. Campaigners on the issue are now calling for the sites to be designated and protected.
I am delighted that the Minister is present and I am grateful to him to for writing to me on the matter. He stated in his letter:
A request from HMS Prince of Wales and HMS Repulse Survivors Associations to have both vessels designated under the provisions of the Protection of Military Remains Act 1986 is under consideration. Once this review has been completed and I have had the opportunity to consider the findings of the report, my officials will reply to the Survivors Association.
I hope that the Minister will not take it amiss if I say that that may be a fine starting point, but as a final position it will not do; more will be required. I want from the Minister a commitment to act and, because I believe in bringing solutions as well as problems to the House, I will suggest ways in which that might be done.
I understand those who campaign on the issue who believe that the Protection of Military Remains Act 1986 may be the way forward, but I am not so sure about that, for reasons that I shall explain. I pay tribute to Professor Nicholas Gaskell of the Institute of Maritime Law at Southampton university, the leading institution on the subject in the United Kingdom. Professor Gaskell has advised the Government on similar issues.
Professor Gaskell said that the 1986 Act, useful as it is, does not do any more than protect those wrecks within United Kingdom waters that might be at risk from United Kingdom citizens or from boats registered here. Registration under that Act has its place, but it is not sufficient. Professor Gaskell told me that the Merchant Shipping and Maritime Security Act 1977— especially sections 24(1) and 24(2)(b)—is more use. Section 24(1) states:
The Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument make such provision as he considers appropriate for the purpose of giving effect to any international agreement which relates to the protection of wrecks outside United Kingdom waters.
I understand from Professor Gaskell that if an international agreement were reached, it could be given force under the 1997 Act.

245WH
There is a third possible approach, for which I am again indebted to Professor Gaskell. He tells me that schedule 11 to the Merchant Shipping Act 1995 gives effect in United Kingdom law to an international convention. The relevant provision is article 19 of the salvage convention.
All the relevant law is fearfully complicated, but I understand from Professor Gaskell that article 19 would be relevant if Her Majesty's Government had reason to believe that nationals of a particular country were involved in pillaging sites. Those remain Crown property, wherever the sinking took place—subject to one proviso that I do not think I need to mention in a debate of this length. It is possible to implement the article, provided that steps have been taken in the relevant country, by way of an advertisement or article in the press or some such method, to draw to general attention the fact that the sites remain under the protection of Her Majesty's Government. Once that is done it is possible, under the convention, to sue or prosecute in the local courts. Again, Professor Gaskell tells me that there is no reason to suspect that Singapore would not be prepared to co-operate in that way. Singapore is relevant because many of the divers who visit the sites do so from there.
I have tried briefly to outline areas of law, which, although they are spectacularly complicated, suggest that, provided that the Minister can state a commitment to act, there is a way forward. Professor Gaskell, who is already in contact with the Government on related issues, assures me that if they want to speak to him about what I have described, he will be delighted to help.
This is the first occasion in recent times that this matter has been debated in the House of Commons, although Lord Clifford raised it several years ago in the House of Lords. It is an all-party matter. Labour, Liberal and Conservative Members have expressed concern about it. The hon. Member for Basildon (Angela Smith) raised it at business questions, but this is the first time that we have had the opportunity for even a short debate on the matter. It is almost a matter of concern to all nations. Lord Clifford wrote to The Daily Telegraph on 10 October about the Scharnhorst, a German battleship that went down with the loss of nearly 2,000 people. He wrote as eloquently as he always does, and concluded:
The grave should be treated just like a cemetery where, out of respect, visitors keep to the footpath. Divers should keep their distance, so that the place of rest may be honoured by family and friends.
A commitment from the Minister is needed to make progress with this matter. There will be talk—indeed,there has been talk already, I believe—of setting up yet more all-party groups, which will campaign over the years to bring about a successful conclusion. I bear in mind that the Minister, as far as he was able, and with his usual skill, hinted pretty broadly yesterday in this Chamber that an announcement may well be made shortly to bring to an end a campaign that many of us have been waging on behalf of former Japanese prisoners of war. By a happy coincidence, that may yet be achieved in time for Remembrance day. If the Minister were to give a commitment today on the matter that I have raised, it could be dealt with by Remembrance day next year.
246WH
The poet Rupert Brooke wrote about another war, which was called a war to end all wars:
If I should die, think only this of me:
That there's some corner of a foreign field
That is for ever England.
For a great many of our constituents, what I have described is the nearest that they will get to that foreign field. What is needed from the Minister is not simply an assurance that he is reviewing and considering what might be done, but a direct commitment to the idea that what is happening to the graves in question is unacceptable. We need to know what steps have been taken or, if the process is to start today, that the Minister will write to the Governments in question and use the available law. He could go one better if he wanted to, and announce that the matter will all be dealt with by next Sunday. However, I stress in as friendly a way as I can that I should be appalled if I had to stand here again next year and learn that the same things were happening as are happening now. If the Minister will give a commitment to act, there is every reason to think that the law, complicated though it is, can be used.
12.44 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Dr. Lewis Moonie): I congratulate the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) on securing this debate on the important subject of protecting the sites of HMS Prince of Wales and HMS Repulse. That is an important matter and an example of the interest shown in the subject of the protection of wrecked military vessels that are the last resting place of ships' companies.
I acknowledge that the matter is of increasing concern to a number of groups and individuals. I pay tribute to the efforts of various survivors' associations, the Friends of War Memorials and others who campaign tirelessly to bring the issue to the notice of Departments and Government agencies, local authorities and others—such as police forces, port and harbour authorities, museums and academic and professional bodies—which have a responsibility for or an interest in the conduct of diving and the protection of wrecks.
I pay tribute to Lord Clifford and others who have written to my colleague Baroness Symons and me about protecting HMS Prince of Wales and HMS Repulse. I shall deal with the protection of wrecks generally, before dealing with specifics. I disagree with nothing that the hon. Gentleman has said. If he wants a commitment that I shall do everything in my power to take things forward, I am happy to give it. I cannot say whether I shall be successful. If he provides me with details of Professor Gaskell's advice and location, I shall be happy to get in touch with him.
We have heard how HMS Prince of Wales and HMS Repulse were lost on 10 December 1941, following strikes by Japanese torpedo bombers. Repulse and Prince of Wales sank with the loss of 513 and 327 lives respectively. The wrecks of those vessels lie in international waters off the east coast of Malaysia. As the 60th anniversary of that sad loss approaches, I am glad to note in passing that the Royal Navy was able to conduct a service of remembrance at the wreck site and HMS Newcastle laid a wreath in commemoration on 31 July.

247WH
I state unequivocally that the Government share the widely held view that war graves should remain undisturbed and protected so far as that is practical and that diving on any other wreck should be unobtrusive. I would find it abhorrent if human remains in war graves were disturbed, unless there were overriding imperatives of marine or environmental safety. I am certain that the vast majority of people feel likewise.
The sport of recreational diving has recently enjoyed a significant growth in popularity. Technological advances in the equipment and navigational aids used by modern sports divers allow them to dive on sites to a greater depth and with greater precision than before. I have little doubt that the vast majority of sports divers are decent law-abiding people, who would wish to associate themselves with the remarks made by the hon. Gentleman about the protection of wrecks.
I pay tribute to the diving associations and the responsible and positive action that they are taking to educate their members about wreck protection. The three major associations have this year developed and launched a code of practice for their sports diver membership, which gives clear guidance about the need to respect and not to intrude on wreck sites. We welcome and encourage that initiative. I wish the code of practice every success, because, in the short term at least, a regime of informed self-regulation deserves to succeed. My officials and those in other Departments have supported that enterprise and will continue to do so.
It is imperative that the diving community and survivors' associations work together to ensure that due respect is paid to wreck sites and that they are not pillaged. Legislation alone is not the solution, although it can help. Respect through education is the best form of protection, certainly in the first instance, backed by legislation and the clear indication that action will be taken if necessary.
In a similar vein, I welcome the proposal by the Marine and Coastguard Agency to promote a wreck amnesty. Legislation provides that any wreck recovered from UK territorial waters, or brought within them, must be reported to the receiver, who is an official of that agency. The amnesty will encourage finders of wrecked material and artefacts who were perhaps ignorant of the law to come forward and report past finds. It should also allow the receiver of wreck to clarify the correct procedures to finders, and to encourage future compliance with the procedures.
Today, I have been specifically asked about the prospect of protecting the site of HMS Prince of Wales and HMS Repulse, given the provisions of the Protection of Military Remains Act 1986. By implication, I have also been asked what legal and other actions the Government can and should take to discourage or prohibit intrusive diving on wrecked military vessels by a wayward or unscrupulous minority that does not heed the good sense of the diving associations' code of practice.
The 1986 Act empowers my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to designate by statutory instrument that the Act apply to any vessel that has sunk or been stranded while in military service, irrespective of whether its location is known. A place containing the remains of such a vessel, provided it is in United Kingdom waters or international waters, becomes a
248WH
protected place. He is further empowered to designate as a controlled site any area, whether in UK or international waters, that appears to him to contain the remains of a vessel that sunk or was stranded in military service.
In broad terms, the Act makes it an offence to interfere with the remains of vessels within a protected place or controlled site, unless a licence permitting the interference has been issued by the Secretary of State for Defence. Thus, most intrusive diving activity on a designated vessel or wreck site will be prohibited unless a licence allowing diving to take place has been issued.
To date, the Ministry of Defence has not designated any vessels or controlled sites. I readily acknowledge that the situation regarding wrecks is changing, and have already mentioned how advances in the technology available to salvage and sub-aqua divers, coupled with a sustained increase in the popularity of diving as a sport, have meant that previously undisturbed wrecks may become potential targets for trophy hunters. This, together with the increased public respect for wrecks that are war graves, provided the impetus for a review of policy on the subject. I recognise the growing importance of the matter. Previously, I have said that my Department is reviewing the protection of vessels and wreck sites, and that I will respond fully to inquiries that I have received.
In considering the designation of vessels or wreck sites, I have given due consideration to the views of those campaigning for the designation of war graves. I have noted the coastal industry that revolves around sports diving, in which a small but significant number of individuals rely on diving for their livelihood in areas where options for alternative employment are limited. I am also conscious of the efforts that are being made by the diving associations to increase sports divers' awareness of the need to respect all those who lost their lives at sea. My Department intends to increase its support for those initiatives, through further information and guidance of its own.
I am not persuaded that that should be the Department's sole approach, however. I view the issue as a conflict of interest between aspects of the diving community and the interests of survivors' associations. I believe that education is the most effective mechanism by which wreck sites can be offered the best protection, but it may not be sufficient. In the balance of conflicting interests, we must always err on the side of the survivors' associations.
Mr. Nicholls: What the Minister says is most encouraging. Does he agree that much of it relates to good practice and enforceability in the UK's immediate sphere of influence? I have also drawn his attention to the fact that out and out commercial pillaging is taking place overseas. Would he be prepared to make representations to foreign Governments on such matters to ask for their co-operation, once he was satisfied that the law enabled him to do so?
Dr. Moonie: That is certainly what I have in mind. I shall make some remarks about the international situation shortly.
Moral authority rests with the rights of survivors rather than divers' recreational pursuits. It is for that reason that I have asked my Department to consider

249WH
further the specific implications that designation of sites—either as protected places or as controlled sites—will have for the diving community from both a legal and economic perspective.
Additionally, I want to reassure the hon. Gentleman that all wrecks of Her Majesty's ships, be they war graves or not, remain the property of the Crown. If we are able to gather evidence that individuals have been involved in pillaging of such vessels, it will be presented to the police for them to consider what action may be taken. I recognise that there is a need to take a tougher stance with the rogue element of the diving community. I ask all responsible elements of the diving community to pull together to stamp out the rogue elements and enable protection of Crown property to become a tangible reality. That area will always be difficult, and I believe that survivors' associations understand that, but platitudes are not sufficient when property is stolen or graves are desecrated.
HMS Prince of Wales and HMS Repulse lie in international waters off the coast of Malaysia. Representations have been made by my officials both in Kuala Lumpur and Singapore to officials within the respective Governments. The navies of both Malaysia and Singapore have been asked to keep my officials informed of reports of intrusive diving or salvage or any untoward activities in the area of the wrecks.
Diving on those wrecks is likely to attract sports divers of many nationalities as well as local divers from Malaysia and Singapore. The 1986 Act does not extend to foreign nationals on non-British controlled vessels, and enforcing it at such a distance from home waters would present significant practical difficulties for all concerned, as the hon. Gentleman recognised in his remarks. It is unlikely to provide the degree of protection for HMS Repulse and HMS Prince of Wales that the hon. Gentleman seeks. However, I believe that designation will provide evidence of the wrecks' status and the Government's commitment to honour its war dead. It is for that reason, therefore, that I have requested my officials to look again at detailing what
250WH
designation will entail and what it will provide, and whether that can be linked effectively to ensure better protection.
My officials, together with those from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office are working with the international community on how wrecks may best be protected. Several countries support our position that historical wrecked vessels and military war graves should be left undisturbed. UNESCO is discussing a draft convention on the protection of under-water cultural heritage. The United Kingdom and other major maritime powers are fully engaged in this process, particularly as it relates to historic warships. However, the hon. Gentleman must be aware that the process of working through UNESCO can be time consuming.
The Government share the desire, expressed today, that, where practicable, significant wrecks, whether civil or military, which are part of our heritage or are dangerous, should be properly protected. The issue goes beyond defence, and we need to take account of the rights and freedoms of the legitimate users of our territorial waters as well as peoples' aspirations for the protection of wrecks. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be reassured by my words today that the Government take the matter seriously. To that end, I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for initiating this worthwhile debate.
I repeat the hope that I expressed earlier that the diving associations' efforts at self-regulation and, in particular, the recent code of practice, will bring about the improved behaviour that we all desire. If self-regulation proves inadequate, I remain ready to take further action to ensure that proper respect is paid to those sites in perpetuity. Some may be disappointed that I have failed to announce any concrete proposals today. They should not be disappointed, however, as more consideration is required. All my experience tells me that it is best to move forward slowly and, where possible, with the agreement of all parties concerned in such delicate areas. Consequently, before I make an announcement of the best way ahead, I propose to consult the relevant parties and shall do so as quickly as possible. Nevertheless, I hope that the tenor of my approach is clear. My Department supports the aspirations of survivors' associations and of the hon. Gentleman. In my opinion, time is up for rogue divers.

Biwater Industries (Clay Cross) Ltd.
12.59pm
Mr. Harry Barnes: On 4 September, a bombshell exploded at Clay Cross in my constituency. Within minutes of the takeover of Biwater, a pipe-manufacturing plant, it was announced that the works would be closed down at the beginning of December—only a month from now. That would lead to the loss of 700 jobs, and, since 75 per cent. of those workers live within a 5-mile radius of the plant, that would cause devastation to the local community.
The response was immediate. Everyone combined to fight the threatened closure: the workers, the General, Municipal and Boilermakers' union, local councils, elected representatives and the whole of the local community, including a highly active women's support group. The reaction was so strong because everyone knew that this plant was not on its last legs. It was to be closed not because it was doing badly, but because it was doing rather well.
According to Biwater's annual report this year, the company's share of the home market grew by 9 per cent. Its major strength, however, is in the export trade, and the report stressed that there had been a 30 per cent. increase in sales in Italy, and significant contracts with the United Arab Emirates, Syria, Vietnam, Korea, China and South Africa. The company's market position was being maintained in France, Spain and Germany. A breakthrough had been made into the Egyptian market, and the dominant market position was being maintained in Lebanon.
The only problem had been initial low oil prices in the middle east. When the price of oil rose, so did Biwater's orders. Indeed, with the recent hike in oil prices, orders have been flooding in. I have supplied details of these to the Department of Trade and Industry. Between 1 September and 25 September, £3.4 million-worth of orders came in, mainly after the announcement of the closure. On 16 October, I faxed to the Secretary of State 25 pages of further evidence of continuing export orders. In fact, the workers at Clay Cross have been working overtime and extra shifts in order to meet growing demand. Orders stood at £7.5 million at the end of August and rose to £9.13 million by the end of September.
Another sign that demand has been high for the pipes is that the value of stocks of goods for resale fell from £5.5 million in 1999 to £4.7 million in 2000. Biwater was not, therefore, producing goods that could not be shifted. Operating profits also rose from £2 million to £2.3 million in the same period.
Why on earth, therefore, would anyone wish to close down a plant that is the jewel in the crown of the United Kingdom's pipe-manufacturing industry? Let us look at who is up to what. Saint-Gobain is the company that took over Biwater. It operates through a British subsidiary, Stanton plc. Saint-Gobain is a highly profitable, powerful multinational company. From its headquarters in Paris, it controls 600 subsidiaries in 42 nations, and 8 per cent. of its massive empire is in pipe production.
Saint-Gobain's interests in Biwater have been, first, to destroy the pipe-manufacturing capacity of a rival company that has strength in overseas markets;
252WH
secondly, to take over Biwater's substantial order books, resulting in much of the work ending up with Saint-Gobain's other operations in Brazil, China, Spain, France and Germany; and, thirdly, to transfer some of the plant to Stanton's works at Ilkeston, but mainly to asset-strip the provisions.
That Saint-Gobain has such selfish interests is illustrated by the nature of its deal in taking over Biwater. It has purchased the machinery, the order books, the know-how and the work force. It will take what it needs and place the rest on the scrap heap. It has leased the land and buildings from Biwater on a short-term basis only. In commercial terms, it considers that it needs to get off the site as quickly as possible.
I have had no time to mention the role of Adrian White, BBC governor and the effective owner of Biwater, so it will need to be spotlighted in future. It should also be noted that, even though it has recently received state aid in France, Saint-Gobain is not short of a bob or two. With 600 subsidiaries in 42 nations, its stock market value has increased threefold since 1988. In 1999, its gross profits amounted to 34.1 per cent. of sales, and its dividends amounted to 8 per cent. of sales, so it has ample cash for wheeler-dealing. It will benefit from the Clay Cross closure, but no one in this country will benefit.
Before I ask the Department of Trade and Industry and the Secretary of State to take specific action, I shall mention what has happened so far. On 22 September, the Secretary of State met a deputation from Clay Cross, including my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). The Secretary of State faxed Jean-Louis Beffa, the chairman and chief executive of Saint-Gobain, asking him to reconsider the decision to close on the basis of arguments from the deputation, which he conveyed to Mr. Beffa. In his letter, the Secretary of State added:
On behalf of the UK Government, I can assure you that we stand ready to provide assistance to keep the factory open.
When Mr. Beffa rejected those arguments, the Secretary of State rang him to try to persuade him to change his mind, but the arguments were again rejected. On 28 September, the Secretary of State made the following point at the Labour party conference:
When there is real pressure and difficulties in areas like textiles, coal and steel and in specific plants like Biwater in Clay Cross...we must not stand to one side. We won't walk away.
It should be added that the pressures in textiles, coal and steel are relevant to the area in which Clay Cross is situated.
The situation is desperate. We are within a month of closure, and the loss of 150 jobs is earmarked for 17 November. In the light of his past commitments, what can the Secretary of State do? Under the Fair Trading Act 1973, the Secretary of State may immediately refer the takeover to the Competition Commission. Pending completion of the commission's investigation, the Secretary of State can prevent closure and establish that the plant is running fully, as prior to the takeover. Before deciding whether to do so, the Secretary of State will take into account the points made in this debate and representations from the EU Competition Commissioner. Commissioner Monti is considering whether, under EU directives and regulations, Saint-Gobain has abused its dominant

253WH
market position and whether abuse or misuse has occurred in respect of state aids agreed by the EU Commission and paid by the French Government.
Phillip Whitehead MEP and shop stewards met representatives from Commissioner Monti's office in order to pursue those points. He is trying to obtain relevant material from the European Union, and I believe that the DTI itself has made representations to try to clarify that point.
We should be on a winner with this argument: we should be able to save the plant. However, there is a big fly in the ointment—the Office of Fair Trading. In April, the OFT looked into the intended takeover. Its recommendation to the Secretary of State was that the deal could be accepted and did not need to go before the Competition Commission. On the basis of the OFT's report, which made no reference to the closure proposal and concentrated on competition policy matters only, the Secretary of State accepted the recommendation. The Secretary of State was, however, misled—the Director General of Fair Trading recently revealed that the OFT knew prior to the report that Saint-Gobain intended to close Biwater.
I assume that if information of that nature had been passed to the Secretary of State, he would have had second thoughts about accepting the OFT recommendation. When, on 3 October, I asked the Secretary of State to refer the matter to the Competition Commission, he decided first to return it to the OFT, on the basis of new information that he had to hand, much of which had been supplied by myself and Councillor David Nuttall, leader of North East Derbyshire district council. Unfortunately, John Vickers, the new Director General of Fair Trading, merely endorsed his predecessor's recommendations. However, the Secretary of State can still refer the matter to the Competition Commission over the head of the OFT. That has been done before by the Secretary of State and his predecessors.
The OFT's report, of which we now have an edited version, with various statistics removed, shows no signs of its having assessed certain matters that are of relevance to the Secretary of State's judgments. Under the Fair Trading Act 1973, he is entitled to consider the impact of the development on UK exports—I have stressed today and in the past the export work in which Biwater is involved—and the distribution of industry and employment in the UK. Neither of those matters is included in the advice that was sent to the Secretary of State by the OFT, and they do not appear to have been given serious consideration. Even given the OFT's concern for competition policy, the arguments that I have summarised today, which were presented in detail to the Secretary of State, override the position that it has taken.
As an alternative to turning to the Competition Commission, the Secretary of State could negotiate an immediate deal with Saint-Gobain to save the day, perhaps involving a new purchaser who will properly operate the plant as a competitor with Saint-Gobain. I see no reason why Biwater (Clay Cross) cannot concentrate on producing much needed pipes for the overseas market—including desperately needed pipes for the third world—while Stanton plc, which operates
254WH
with a foundry involved in pipe production, from Ilkeston in Derbyshire and from Staveley, which is also in my constituency, could concentrate on the home market, which it mainly supplies.
I hope that the Minister can either tell us exactly what the Secretary of State will do or explain his thinking and confirm when a final decision is to be made. The matter cannot drag on for much longer. We need a response that will save 700 jobs. As early-day motion 1084—which was signed by 103 Labour Members—argued, the matter should go before the Competition Commission, the closure should be put on hold, and the report that would then be published by the commission should be geared towards saving the plant.
Mr. Dennis Skinner rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. John McWilliam): Does the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) have the permission of the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) to speak?
Mr. Barnes indicated assent.
1.14 pm
Mr. Skinner: I have nothing but praise for the work done by my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) ever since the closure programme began. He has been involved during every single waking hour, for a simple reason. The case does not involve 700 jobs in the south-east, where unemployment has gone way below the national average. We are talking about an old coalfield and steel area. In some villages in my constituency, where some of the Biwater employees work, the level of hidden unemployment is not dissimilar to that in many other high-unemployment areas in old coalfield regions. You, Mr. McWilliam, know only too well about how much unemployment is hidden. The net result is a rate of some 15 to 20 per cent.
That is why 700 jobs in Clay Cross are as important as a Rover problem spread over 20 constituencies. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry got stuck into the Rover problem. We are still concerned about the eventual outcome, but we managed to get the show back on the road. The case under discussion affects about three constituencies in the main, but it is just as bad—if not worse—in terms of consequences for the people there. All deep mine pits in north Derbyshire have closed and the textile industry has been ripped apart. In my constituency, 700 jobs have gone in the past few months. I think that a similar number of jobs have disappeared in my hon. Friend's constituency and in other parts of the area. We are saying to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, "You've got to do something special here."
We must bear in mind that there has been intrigue from the beginning in this matter. Those concerned went to the Office of Fair Trading and said, "Look here, there's a takeover. This monster conglomerate, Saint-Gobain, is eating things up all over the place and asset stripping. It is like the 1960s and 1970s all over again, like Slater Walker and all the rest, except that it is French." Everyone is hoodwinked, the business is taken

255WH
over and they close it within half an hour. What happens then? Two directors of Biwater manage to obtain a directorship in the new firm, Saint-Gobain. It was a dirty intrigue from beginning to end.
Of course, the workers were not told. If it had happened on the mainland of the so-called Europe, common market or whatever it is, they would have been told. We made strong representations to the Department of Trade and Industry and we expected the Office of Fair Trading to do its job. It has not done so, so we have now come to a political crunch. If I were the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, I would not want the OFT to pull the wool over my eyes. I would say, "Look here. I'm the gaffer. I'm the boss in this Department and I'll refer this to the Competition Commission. Never mind about those tinpot civil servants who took the decision." There is too much hiding behind civil servants. When somebody is given the job of Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, he has a duty to ensure that civil servants are considering the political implications of what has happened in this case, which have been outlined so precisely by my hon. Friend.
It is a race against time. There is only a month. The shop stewards and workers are fed up to the back teeth. If anybody is to be blamed, it should be Saint-Gobain and Biwater. The trouble is that we can say that it is their fault only if the Secretary of State does the decent thing and implements my hon. Friend's proposal. He should refer the matter to the Competition Commission, irrespective of what the OFT does. The OFT is employed by the state and paid by the taxpayer—by all of us here. Why should it decide what the issues should be? The Secretary of State should stand above its decision and re-negotiate it to ensure the survival of this viable plant—we are not talking about an uneconomic unit, here—so that those workers can keep their jobs and the dole queues will not rise in Clay Cross and Bolsover resulting in the taxpayer picking up a massive bill for dole and unemployment benefits.
1.20 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Alan Johnson): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) on securing this important debate. The Government recognise the devastating effect that the announcement of the closure of Clay Cross has had on workers at the plant and on the local community. That has been articulated by my hon. Friend and by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), who spoke with great passion. The closure of the plant, which plays a key role in the employment and wider economy of the area, has clearly come as a heavy blow. We fully understand the efforts that my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire has made to bring this case to the attention of the House.
Part of the Government's competition policy relates to the regulation of mergers, and it might be helpful if I outline that process. The Secretary of State considers merger cases on the basis of advice provided by the Director General of Fair Trading. The officials of the DGFT in the Office of Fair Trading undertake an analysis of a merger that meets the qualifying criteria under the Fair Trading Act 1973. In particular, they will consider the effects of the merger on competition in the relevant markets.
256WH
It is the policy of the Government to refer merger cases to the Competition Commission for further investigation primarily on competition grounds. It is open to the DGFT and to Ministers to consider other issues, which can be broadly categorised as public interest issues and could include, for example, the effect on employment, regional development, or national security. However, as the Office of Fair Trading's own published guidance states, only in very exceptional circumstances would such considerations be a decisive factor.
Mr. Skinner: Is that acceptable?
Mr. Johnson: It is the process that is always applied. I shall come on to talk about the specific case in a moment.
The primary purpose of merger control is to consider and, if necessary, block or amend those mergers that are identified as having adverse effects on competition in markets. Merger control is, therefore, part of a competition policy whose aim is to improve the dynamism, innovation and efficiency of the economy as a whole, which we believe is the best means of securing jobs.
Once the Director General of Fair Trading has advised, the Secretary of State may refer the case to the Competition Commission for further investigation. The commission may recommend clearing the merger, in which case that would be the end of the matter, or find that the merger is against the public interest because of adverse effects. If the latter happens, the Competition Commission may recommend seeking undertakings from the parties to remedy the adverse effects, or simply blocking the merger. The Secretary of State can accept or reject those recommendations, including clearing the merger.
I would now like to turn to the specific case that we are debating today. The merger between Stanton and Biwater was notified to the OFT in April 2000. It received information from the parties and asked, publicly, for third-party comments on the merger. Although Stanton did tell the OFT of its plans to close Clay Cross, the OFT was unable to seek the views of third parties on the plans as the information was commercially confidential and its release without the provider's permission could have breached the Fair Trading Act 1973.
The OFT carefully considered the merger between Stanton and Biwater. The DGFT advised the Secretary of State on 21 June that the merger should be cleared. This advice was put on the OFT website, at the request of the Secretary of State, on 13 October. I do not intend to repeat it here. The essential points are that the DGFT found that the merger raised no competition concerns, on the basis of which advice the Secretary of State cleared the merger on 29 June. However, it is important that hon. Members are aware that the advice given to the Secretary of State did not refer to Stanton's plans to close Clay Cross.
I shall now explain the steps that the Government have taken since we became aware that the Clay Cross plant was to shut. My hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire mentioned that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has

257WH
taken a personal interest in the case. The meeting that he described took place on 22 September. Immediately following that meeting, he asked the Director General of Fair Trading to publish the advice that he had given to Ministers on the case. We have also responded to requests from my hon. Friend and other interested parties to look again at the decision.
Under the Fair Trading Act 1973, a merger decision may be revisited if material facts in relation to a merger not in the public domain were not disclosed. However, the plans to close the plant, which were disclosed to the OFT, do not constitute such material facts. My hon. Friend wrote to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on 3 October asking him to refer the merger to the Competition Commission on the basis of other, new material facts that he said were contained in documents that he had sent to the Secretary of State.
On 9 October, my right hon. Friend asked the Director General of Fair Trading to look at the information provided by my hon. Friend and others. Some of the information related to the period since June and therefore cannot have been made available to the OFT when it undertook its analysis of the case. I understand that the director general and his staff have carefully examined all the information that was provided to them. Following that examination, the director general wrote on 23 October to my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire
Mr. Barnes: How would the material that had to be made available to the Office of Fair Trading by June relate to the Biwater annual report from which I quoted? That report showed the viability of the plant, but it was not publicly available until October, and it would not have been submitted until the year ending 31 April. The report might have been examined by the OFT, but it was not examined very carefully.
Mr. Johnson: My hon. Friend makes an important point about information that may have become available after the merger but was based on facts that were known before then. I shall deal with that point when I come to the crux of the matter—where we go from here.
The Director General of Fair Trading concluded that the information was not material and that it would not have affected the then director general's analysis of the case in June. He said also that the new information did not rebut the evidence for a lack of significant competition concerns considered by the then director
258WH
general, nor his conclusion that the case should be cleared. On those grounds the director general sees no grounds for re-opening the case. However, we are aware of the separate approaches being made to the European Commission, and we shall obviously consider the Commission's views to see whether they are relevant.
I shall now describe the steps that the Government have taken to deal with the impact of the closure. First, immediately after seeing my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire and hon. Members for the neighbouring constituencies on 22 September, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State wrote to the chief executive of Saint-Gobain. Mr. Beffa, asking him to consider the options for preventing the closure. Mr. Beffa made clear in his reply that the decision had been taken for strong commercial reasons which the company were not prepared to revisit. Saint-Gobain has stated publicly that its main motivation for the acquisition of Biwater was to protect the position of UK-manufactured ductile iron pipes and fittings in the UK market. I understand that the company's reasons for closing the Biwater plant at Clay Cross arise from a number of factors, including over-capacity in the UK market.
In the time left to me, I shall turn to the practical steps that we are taking to try to ameliorate the impact of the closure. A job shop has been set up on the site to provide advice on job vacancies, retraining and benefits. We have provided rapid response funds to provide enhanced retraining opportunities for the work force over and above existing provisions. A cross-authority working group has been set up by the county council to co-ordinate the response of all its departments and to offer a range of support. Derbyshire county council and North East Derbyshire district council are working on an impact study. That study will assess the overall impact of the closure on the Clay Cross area, including the knock-on effect on Biwater's local suppliers and other local businesses. That will be a valuable tool to inform the group's longer-term work. A wide range of long-term action is also in hand or planned, and some money from the single regeneration budget has been made available. I understand that those are not the concern of my hon. Friends; they are looking to save jobs.
This has been an important debate on an important topic. The Secretary of State has made it absolutely clear that he wants to take into account all the points made by my hon. Friends before he considers the matter further. He will do exactly that, with a view to our assisting in any way that we can to ensure that the matter described so eloquently by my hon. Friends is dealt with, and so that any jobs that can be saved will be saved.

Insurance Industry
1.30 pm
Dr. Vincent Cable: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to speak to this Adjournment debate. This issue narrowly affects at least 600,000 with-profit policyholders of the Axa insurance companies, but given the precedent that may be created by the case to which I shall refer, almost every family in the country with a life insurance policy could be affected.
I have spent some time ploughing through relevant documents, and they contain pretty esoteric stuff in many respects. To understand some of them seems to require the actuarial equivalent of a PhD. Despite their complexity, however, there are some fairly basic issues of principle, such as who owns the very large—approximately £20 billion—orphan assets or inherited estates that lie in the major life insurance companies. Should policyholders own 90 per cent. of such assets, as tradition and ministerial and official guidance suggests, or should the assets be apportioned differently?
The press, including the Daily Mail, have taken up this issue with a vengeance. Many people strongly believe that allowing the Axa case to set a precedent would fit firmly into the Government's rip-off Britain policy. I am aware that the case is subject to legal action, and it is clear that the political dimension must be dealt with in that context. However, the case is rather unusual in political and legal terms, in that it is a public interest case brought by the Consumer Association with strong public backing.
A minute or two ago, a note was handed to me stating that the first round of the legal action was determined this morning. The Consumer Association has been awarded preventive costs of £100,000 to pursue its case against the insurance company, so it appears to have won the first round. According to that note—I have not established this yet—the judge has confirmed what the Consumer Association has argued all along: that this is not merely a narrow and technical legal issue, and that major public policy issues are involved that concern the Treasury and the Financial Services Authority, among others.
I shall return to those public policy issues in more detail, but let me summarise them now. Essentially, there are four issues. One is the status of Government guidance—originally provided by a Minister, but reaffirmed by the Treasury—on the so-called 90:10 rule. What is the current status of that guidance? The second issue concerns the FSA's performance, which seems a clear case of regulatory capture, as it is termed in the industry. Thirdly, there are issues relating to the Inland Revenue. I am in no sense a tax lawyer—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. John McWilliam): Order. We are having some problems here, and it would help if the hon. Gentleman were to establish the exact position of this case. Has it been put down for trial?
Dr. Cable: I am not enough of a lawyer to give a proper legal assessment. As I understand it, a case is being heard before the High Court, in which the Consumer Association is involved on the policyholders'
260WH
behalf, and a preliminary round of hearings was held this morning. The matter has been the subject of a great deal of press comment—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has made it clear that the case is sub judice, so I am afraid that specific discussion of it is out of order. However, he is open to argue the general principle.
Dr. Cable: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You have pointed the way, and I shall try to be careful not to refer too much to matters under discussion in court. My point was was that there are substantial issues of public policy principle, to which I wish to return in detail later.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. May I make it clear to the hon. Gentleman that he must not refer to the specifics of that case at all?
Dr. Cable: May I then define the problem in general terms? Insurance companies in general have orphan assets—assets set aside for long-term prudential purposes—which probably derive from the fact that bonuses that were insufficiently generous in the past have resulted in the accumulation of very substantial sums of money. The question is how those orphan assets should be allocated. The traditional assumption has been that 90 per cent. of them should be allocated to policyholders. That principle has been established in two ways: it features in the articles of association of all life insurance companies, and it was the subject of a Government guideline set out in 1995 by a Minister called Jonathan Evans—of whom I had not previously heardߞwhich has subsequently been reiterated by the Treasury. I hope that I have understood correctly that that is the current position.
I have a little difficulty in proceeding, as I am unsure how far I can illustrate the general points that I want to make with reference to a particular case. You have ruled that the case in question is sub judice, Mr. Deputy Speaker, so I cannot pursue my line of argument. However, the case has been in the public domain, and many of the issues that we have to discuss relate to its public presentation. May I seek clarification, Mr. Deputy Speaker? Does your ruling imply that coverage of the matter in the press, including today's press, technically represents a breach of the law by the newspapers concerned?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It may or may not represent a breach of the law, but it does breach the Standing Orders of the House. I am dealing here with the sub judice rule in those Standing Orders. Any other question is a matter for the courts and not for us.
Dr. Cable: Your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, makes it very difficult for me to deal with the two essential elements in the case, which relate to the principle of apportionment and to the conduct of the ballot, which is highly contentious. I shall move quickly to my conclusion, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because you have cut the heart out of my subject, although, obviously, I respect your judgment. I shall proceed to the issues that affect the Government.
I have read the Minister's spirited article in the Daily Mail, in which she takes the view that this matter is not her direct responsibility. She correctly says that she did

261WH
not approve the decision made by a particular insurance company, and that it is, therefore, not her direct ministerial responsibility. She took the view that examination of the matter by the Financial Services Authority and the courts provided adequate protection to policyholders.
However, there are issues involving public policy to which I hope the Minister will be able to respond within the constraints that we have had placed on us. The first relates to the guidance that the Government have given regarding the 90:10 rule, which has been changed by this case. Does the 90:10 rule still apply? It has clearly generated confusion, and there are now several different interpretations of it. The company involved obviously made a different interpretation from that of the policyholders. Does the Minister plan to re-state that guidance? Would that require legislation, whether primary or secondary? Everyone concerned with the problemߞin general terms, and not necessarily in relation to that court action—would like clarification on the Government's stance on the 90:10 apportionment principle.
The second matter of public policy relates to the Financial Services Authority, which reviewed the case in its capacity as regulator. The problem is whether the FSA has acted as one would expect of an effective and independent regulator. When it was set up—as the Minister must remember with pain because she guided the legislation through the House—interminable presentations were made and amendments suggested, almost all of them on behalf of practitioners. Many of those points were perfectly valid, but some of us, particularly those who argued from the consumer viewpoint, always feared that practitioner interests would come to dominate the FSA. We have seen that happen with other regulators—for instance, it was said at one stage that Oftel had been captured by BT. The danger is that a regulator, because of a lack of knowledge of the industry, will tend to err on the side of practitioners rather than consumers.
I am referring to the work of the FSA rather than the matter now being considered in court when I ask how, as a matter of general principle, the interests of a large number of life insurance policyholders can be represented at the FSA. The policyholders appear not to have had a voice. I also question the FSA's expertise. Different judgments have been given on complex matters by independent actuaries, which the FSA seems either not to have considered or not to have understood. Another matter is the conduct of the ballot in the case under consideration by the court, and whether the FSA properly considered the detail involved—but I am not allowed to refer to that. However, the main point is that the FSA has refused to divulge details of its findings on the ground of commercial confidentiality. I should have hoped that, acting as an independent regulator in the public interest, it would do so.
The third point of public policy—I am trying to stay as close as I can to my subject without contravening Mr. Deputy Speaker's ruling—relates to the Inland Revenue. If companies depart from the 90:10 rule and seek to use part of their orphan assets for tax planning purposes, shareholders will pay less tax. It is possible to use orphan assets for tax planning—or, more
262WH
provocatively, tax avoidance—purposes. The Inland Revenue clearly has an interest in the matter, and I sincerely hope that the Treasury has spotted the scope for large-scale tax avoidance by the insurance industry once the 90:10 rule is breached.
My final point is a broad one about the insurance industry. The industry is undergoing a massive process of consultation, takeovers are imminent and demutualisation is possible for some of the large insurers. The future of Equitable Life is highly uncertain, which raises the question of how its orphan assets should be utilised. In many ways, that question will be determined by the precedent that we are not allowed to discuss today. None the less, a broad public policy issue is involved. Within the constraints that we have been set, I hope that the Minister can give us some broad idea of how orphan assets can be utilised in the future.
1.43 pm
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Miss Melanie Johnson): I, too, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will do my best to stick to your injunctions on the specific case involved. I therefore apologise in case some of the questions asked by the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) cannot be answered as fully as he would like.
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate. It will help if I run through the general background of inherited estates and the role of the Government and the regulator in these matters, without commenting on the specifics in which the hon. Gentleman and I are interested.
Issues related to inherited estates, commonly known as orphan assets, arise because a number of with-profits offices have accumulated surplus assets in their long-term business funds. That is to say, they have built up amounts over and above those strictly required to meet their liabilities and the statutory margin of solvency. Those sums can be used to smooth investment returns for policyholders from year to year.
The law requires all insurance companies to keep the assets of their long-term business in segregated funds known as long-term business funds, which can be used only for the purposes of long-term business. The surplus in the long-term business fund is termed an estate. The surplus is also used to meet policyholders' reasonable expectations in respect of the financial security of the fund and, as the hon. Gentleman said, the company's future investment and bonus policies. However, to the extent that prudent management of the estate permits, part of the surplus can be distributed to policyholders and shareholders. The terms on which distributions are made are often governed by each life office's constitutional documents. However, as the hon. Gentleman observed, it is common practice in shareholder-owned life offices for distributions to be made in the ratio of 90:10 between policyholders and shareholders respectively.
In some cases, the surplus estate has been allowed to grow up over a long time and has been passed from one generation of policyholders to the next. It is this class of surplus that is often called an inherited or orphan estate. The estate may reach a point at which it exceeds what is considered necessary for the efficient management of the business. In such circumstances, the company may wish to manage down the level of the estate by making a distribution in a manner agreed with the regulator.

263WH
Although inherited estates have been built up over many years, in most cases the status of the funds and the appropriate basis of their attribution are clear. However, it does not apply to all insurance matters and all companies; in a small number of shareholder-owned life offices, that is not so. Over the years, policies and practices in those offices may have changed, and there may be doubts about the overall entitlements of shareholders and policyholders in relation to the attribution of surplus.
The Government's general policy on the attribution of inherited estates of insurance companies remains as set out in the reply of 24 July 1998 given by the then Economic Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Mrs. Liddell), to a question asked by my hon. Friend for Halton (Mr. Twigg). That statement confirmed the principle that the interests of policyholders and shareholders in with-profits life funds should generally stand in the ratio 90:10. As the hon. Member for Twickenham said, that policy was identical to the one taken by the previous Administration in 1995. The 90:10 principle reflected common practice in the industry, and the present and previous Administrations felt that that ratio would be a starting point for policyholders' reasonable expectations in any attribution of inherited states. The general principle on distributions and attributions is subject to interpretation depending on circumstances—for example, the constitution of the life office, contractual commitments, company statements of practice or any other relevant factors. The Government have no wish to move away from that principle. The 1998 statement has applied to all mergers and acquisitions involving life business since then.
The hon. Gentleman asked what is the Government's role. We do not seek to interfere in the individual investment and management decisions of individual life offices, nor in the contractual relationship between life offices and policyholders. In the normal course of events, it is for companies, in consultation with their policyholders. to decide how to run their life businesses. Our intention in making the 1998 statement on the distribution of inherited estates was to reaffirm the view taken by the previous Administration. Our announcement on the 90:10 rule sought to draw together general industry practice and influence how such distributions might be made in future. As I have sketched it out, application of the principle will depend on the constitutions and business requirements of individual firms.
Treasury Ministers are responsible for general policy direction and for making proposals for legislation. The Financial Services Authority is carrying out day-to-day regulation of insurance companies on behalf of the Treasury. We are behaving now as we will when the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 comes fully into force. Any insurance company is free to seek to undertake corporate reorganisation of its business. Insurance companies are, however, obliged to take their proposals for such reorganisation to the High Court, which, having been advised by an independent actuary, will decide whether to sanction the reorganisation. As the regulator, the FSA has the right to make representations to the court and will exercise that right in any case. However, it has an on-going supervisory
264WH
role for the purpose of protecting policyholders against the risk that the company will be unable to fulfil its liabilities.
Furthermore, in the case of long-term business, the regulator should seek to ensure that proposed changes to the management of life funds are consistent with the company's requirements to fulfil the reasonable expectations of policyholders. The concept of the reasonable expectations of policyholders derives from legislation, but is not defined in it. The FSA carries out the day-to-day supervision of insurance companies on behalf of the Treasury. It is for the FSA to ensure that those companies are meeting the reasonable expectations of policyholders.
The hon. Gentleman made a specific point about operation of the FSA and asked how independently it is acting and how much it is taking account of consumers' interests. It is, of course, acting entirely independently in circumstances such as those under discussion. In cases of proposed change, it has to take its own independent legal and actuarial advice as necessary. It is also required by legislation to balance consumer protection, competition and other issues in the course of arriving at any decisions or representations. The accumulation of significant surplus assets or inherited estates is not necessarily a matter for concern. Different companies have different approaches, depending on their liabilities and their preferred methods of business management. There are arguments for and against retention or distribution of surplus assets. From the regulator's point of view, corporate strategies must ensure that liabilities are met and that the margins of solvency are maintained.
Under your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I cannot comment on a specific case. It is not the place of the FSA or of the Government to approve or disapprove any particular scheme. Any company has the right to go to court. The regulator's sole role is to assess the likely reasonableness of the scheme in respect of policyholders' expectations. It is for individual policyholders to decide in the light of their personal circumstances whether they want to accept any particular offer.
Eligible policyholders can be asked to decide whether they would agree to the allocation of their policies to a new arrangement. They will have to accept that any agreement reached could cause them to forgo their interests in possible future distributions from the assets of an inherited estate. The present interest in orphan assets has arisen on the basis of a particular case, on which we cannot comment. It is worthwhile to point out that, were any provision to be made, the funds of policyholders who did not accept the agreement would have to be kept in a separate fund to which the general 90:10 principle would still apply.
I hope that my comments on the background to the issue and on the Government's role have been useful to the hon. Gentleman and to other hon. Members who are interested in the topic. I have described a number of important checks and balances that have been built into the legislative and regulatory frameworks in order to safeguard the reasonable expectations of policyholders in an open and transparent way.
It is important for the hon. Gentleman to appreciate that the FSA is carrying out its regulatory functions effectively and efficiently and is taking account of the

265WH
relevant policy issues in discharging its responsibilities, and that the Government are continuing to act in line with the policy framework that has operated for some time in relation to these matters. I hope that he now appreciates the status of the 90:10 rule and the ability of Ministers or the Treasury to intervene, or, as in this or
266WH
any case, not to intervene, in the decision of companies to place particular cases before the courts. It is up to the company concerned, and is not, therefore, a matter in which I, as a Treasury Minister, can successfully intervene.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at four minutes to Two o'clock.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Aston Clinton Bypass
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on(a) the date of commencement and (b) the date of intended completion of construction of the Aston Clinton Bypass. [134416]

  Mr. Hill
  I have asked the Chief Executive of the Highways Agency, Mr. Tim Matthews, to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Tim Matthews to Mr. John Bercow, dated 1 November 2000:
  The Transport Minister, Keith Hill, has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about the A41 Aston Clinton Bypass.
  The procurement process for this scheme is due to end on 21 December and, subject to its satisfactory completion, we aim to award the contract before the end of March 2001.
  The contract will be let on the basis of Design and Build and, because the contractor will need time to complete the detailed design, the main construction work is not expected to start until June/July 2001, although some advance work may take place beforehand. We anticipate that the road will he open to traffic by March/April 2003.
  If you need any further information, please contact the project manager for this scheme, Andy Finch, in our Dorking office. His telephone number is 01306–878342.

  Dog Identification Working Group
  Mr. Browne
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he plans to publish the minutes of evidence of the Dog Identification Working Group; and if he will list the groups and organisations which gave evidence to the group in respect of the use of implanted microchips. [134358]

  Mr. Hill
  The report of the Dog Identification Group contains copies of the minutes of the meetings and the evidence they considered. I will make an announcement soon with regard to the publication of the report. The following groups and organisations were represented on the Dog Identification Group and others are indicated where they provided separate evidence.
  448W
  Members

  The Blue Cross

  Chartered Institute for Environmental Health (CIEH)

  The Dogs' Home Battersea

  The Kennel Club

  Local Government Association (LGA)

  National Canine Defence League (NCDL)

  National Dog Wardens Association (NDWA)

  Pet Care Trust (PCT)

  Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA)

  Wood Green Animal Shelters

  Observers

  Animal Health Trust (AHT)

  Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO)

  Other Government Departments (MAFF, Home Office, Scotland

  Office, National Assembly for Wales, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Region, Northern Ireland Office)

  Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons (RCVS)

  Other evidence provided by:

  Bradford Metropolitan District Council

  Bristol City Council

  British Dalmatian Club

  British Small Animal Veterinary Association

  N Cardwell (Senior Dog Warden Belfast)

  The Association of British Dogs' Homes.

  Mr. Browne
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he expects to receive the report of the Dog Identification Working Group; when he plans to respond to that report; and if he plans to publish the report and his responses thereto. [134363]

  Mr. Hill
  I met the Dog Identification Group on 6 September where they formally presented me with their report. I agreed to consider the group's recommendations and at this stage I am minded to consult interested bodies on the content of the report and to place a copy on the Department's website. I will make a further announcement soon on the next course of action.

  Rail Safety
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is his most recent estimate of the number of defective rails requiring urgent attention by Railtrack for safety reasons in each regional train operator's franchise and in total. [134895]

  Mr. Hill
  On Friday 27 October there were 276 sites where Railtrack engineers were checking for evidence of gauge corner cracking, the fault which is believed to have caused the accident at Hatfield.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what rules govern regular consultation and exchange of information and opinion between representatives of train crews and representatives of train operators, Railtrack and other agencies related to safe operation of railways; how often such meetings take place; what reports are made to him concerning such deliberations; and if he will review such rules. [135448]
  449W
  Mr. Hill
  The current legal requirements relating to worker consultation in relation to train crews are set out in: the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974; the European "Framework" Directive 89/391/EEC; the Safety Representatives and Safety Committees Regulations 1977; the Health and Safety (Consultation with Employees) Regulations 1996; and the Railways (Safety Case) Regulations 1994. The new Railway (Safety Case) Regulations 2000, which will come into force on 31 December 2000, will strengthen the arrangements for consultation and communication. The recently mandated confidential incident reporting and analysis system (CIRAS) allows for regular quarterly meetings to discuss and probe particular adverse events. The unions are represented on the Railway Industry Advisory Committee (RIAC) and Railtrack's Safety Advisory Body (SAB). Details of the meetings taking place under these provisions are not normally communicated to the Secretary of State. The Rail Safety Monitoring Group also includes union representation and is responsible for monitoring implementation of the industry's safety commitments announced at the second Rail Safety Summit in November 1999. The Secretary of State is informed of the outcome of these meetings.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will add to the current remit of the Railways and Health and Safety Inspectorates, assessment of potential systems and structures of financing, assisting planning, maintaining, contracting for reward and operating railway services in the United Kingdom in respect of their optimum contributions to safety. [135449]

  Mr. Hill
  The role of HM Railway Inspectorate, a division of the Health and Safety Executive, is to secure the proper control of risks to the health and safety of employees, passengers and others who might be affected by the operation of Britain's railways. The Health and Safety Executive's remit already extends to considering the implications for health and safety of structural changes within the railway industry and taking action where appropriate to secure the maintenance of health and safety standards. It would not be appropriate to pre-empt the outcome of Lord Cullen's wide-ranging public inquiry into railway safety by proposing major changes to the Executive's functions at the present time.

  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many people on passenger trains were killed in railway accidents in each of the last three years. [135100]

  Mr. Hill
  The number of people on passenger trains killed in railway accidents is shown in the following table produced by the Health and Safety Executive's HM Railway Inspectorate.

  Category

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  Total

  Passenger

  14

  6

  33

  53

  Railway Staff

  0

  0

  2

  2

  Total

  14

  6

  35

  55

  Comprehensive data on railway safety can be found in HM Chief Inspector of Railways Annual Reports on Railway Safety in Great Britain, copies of which can be found in both House Libraries.

  Regional Development Agencies
  Mr. Coleman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if the allocation of resources to regional development agencies will be determined by the recently published Index of Multiple Deprivation. [134567]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The RDAs' existing programmes will largely continue in 2001–02. The proposed new arrangements for allocating the physical regeneration budget include use of the Indices of Deprivation 2000 and the agreed transitional arrangements. No other RDA programme uses the indices.

  The method for allocating funds to RDAs under the new single programme from April 2002 has not been decided. A variety of indicators and indices are likely to play a part.

  Trunk Roads
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) if he will publish the criteria used for recommending the detrunking of a road; [134413]

  (2) if he will publish the criteria for including a road in the trunk route network. [134412]

  Mr. Hill
  The trunk road network was created by and defined in the Trunk Roads Act 1936 as the national system of routes for through traffic. The Trunk Roads Act 1946 extended the network. Neither Act specified criteria for including a route in the trunk road network.

  The provisions of the 1946 Act, now incorporated as section 10 of the Highways Act 1980, require the Secretary of State to keep the trunk road network under review, and if he is satisfied, after taking into consideration the requirements of local and national planning, including the requirements of agriculture, that it is expedient for the purpose of extending, improving or reorganising the system he may create new trunk roads or remove existing ones by publication of an order under that section of the Act.

  During the Roads Review in 1997–98 we undertook a comprehensive review of the existing trunk road network and identified a core network of routes that were of truly national strategic importance today. This core network will remain as the national system of routes for through traffic while the non-core routes that serve only regional or local functions will be detrunked and become the responsibility of local highway authorities. The factors for deciding which routes should be retained in the core network included:

  linking the main centres of population and economic activity;

  accessing major ports, airports and rail intermodal terminals;

  joining peripheral regions to the centre;

  providing key cross-border links to Scotland and Wales;

  classification as part of the UK Trans-European Road Network.

  They were published in our integrated transport White Paper "A New Deal for Transport" (Cm 3950) published in July 1998.

  Fitness to Drive
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will
  451W
  seek information from his EU transport counterparts on restrictions on driving vehicles by people with insulin-treated diabetes. [135398]

  Mr. Hill
  The Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency has written to all EU counterparts. To date replies have been received from Belgium, Sweden, Denmark, Spain and Germany. Information has also been obtained from Norway.

  In the light of this information, the Secretary of State's honorary advisory medical panel on diabetes and driving has reconsidered its previous advice and recommended that applicants with good diabetic control and no significant complications may apply for C1 entitlement (vehicles of between 3.5 to 7.5 tonnes). The panel will meet again on 8 November to finalise the details, after which public consultation will begin with a view to having the legislative changes in place by spring 2001.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to review the ban on driving of Group II vehicles by insulin-using diabetics. [135496]

  Mr. Hill
  [holding answer 31 October 2000]At their meeting on 4 October, the Secretary of State's honorary medical advisory panel on driving and diabetes reviewed the licensing arrangements for Group 2 vehicles (vehicles above 3.5 tonnes). They agreed that those with good diabetic control and no significant complications should be allowed to apply for a licence for category Cl vehicles (between 3.5 and 7.5 tonnes). They will meet again on 8 November to finalise the details, after which public consultation will begin with a view to having the legislative changes in place by spring 2001.

  Housing Green Paper (Wales)
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what arrangements he has made to take account of specific Welsh needs when drawing up his Bill on the proposals in the housing Green Paper. [135116]

  Mr. Mullin
  My Department maintains regular contact with the National Assembly for Wales, both at official and ministerial level, about taking forward the proposals in our housing Green Paper. My hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning also hopes to meet the new Assembly Minister for Finance, Local Government and Communities in the near future. Responses to the Green Paper, and consultation with the National Assembly, will inform the framing of any proposed legislation. We will be announcing the outcome of the Green Paper consultation before the end of the year.

  Single Regeneration Budget
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list those single regeneration budget bids which(a) were not successful in SRB Round 6 and (b) did not receive their funding bid in full. [134847]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 26 October 2000]There were 258 final bids received under round 6 of the single regeneration budget and 189 of these were awarded SRB funding. The unsuccessful bids are given in list A. Successful bids that received reduced funding are 452W
  listed in table B. All SRB bidders were required to prioritise the different elements of their bid to show what would be suitable at reduced levels of funding.

  List A—Name of Unsuccessful SRB Round 6 Final Bid>East of England

  Tendring "ACCESS"

  Inclusion through Communication in Hertfordshire

  Norwich "Canon and Fiddlewood"

  King's Lynn and The Fens

  East Midlands

  Rural action zone—South Holland

  London

  Leyton Links East London

  Linking Economic Potential to Social Exclusion

  Building Capacity of DETR Regeneration Partnerships within London/Linkage to National Network of Regeneration Partnerships

  Pathways South Paddington Bridging the Digital Divide

  Regeneration East London through Youth

  Including Edmonton

  CELEC—Enhancing Work Opportunities in the Healthcare Industry

  Access to Sustainable Employment Barking—South Ilford Airport Supply Chain Programme (ASCP)

  Supporting Southwark Education

  A Leadership Centre for London—Raising Educational Standards in the Capital

  MERG—Unity in Diversity

  Building Better Business

  Mind the Gap—Steps Towards Social Exclusion

  Getting London Working Extension

  The London Ethnic Minority Voluntary Sector Capacity

  Building Programme

  New Jobs and Investment for West London

  Sustainable Communities in a Changing Landscape

  Black Gold Marketing

  Keeping and Creating Jobs and Investment for South London

  The London E-business Bid

  Steps to Employability Programme

  Economic Development, Raising Skills and Regeneration through Effective education Business Links

  Wandlevalley.com

  Learning through Enterprise

  Employability and Enterprise—Capital Communities

  North East

  Regional Community Fire Safety Project

  North East Corporate Community Investment Programme

  Upper Teesdale Doing Well For Itself

  Regional Media Development

  North West

  Partnership North West—All Communities Together Now

  Salford—A Future for Liverpool Road, Eccles

  Ellesmere Port—Link Up Move Up

  Business Link Merseyside—Enterprising Merseyside

  South East of England

  Life in Milton Keynes and North Bucks County Towns

  Agenda For Youth

  Kent and East Sussex Architecture Centre

  453W
  south West

  Tomorrows Torbay

  Community Action For Rural Devon

  Getting Sutton Working (Plymouth)

  Weymouth and Portland—Unlocking the Potential

  Rural Youth Linx (Regionwide)

  Regeneration of Ethnic Minority Communities (Regionwide)

  Piecing IT Together; SWettlers Project (Regionwide)

  West Midlands

  Push for Regeneration

  Neighbourhood Matters in Coventry

  Kington—Redefining the Market Town

  Netherton and Woodside—All our Futures

  Investing to Regenerate for the Black Country

  Skills Expansion Programme—Sep

  Table B

  £000

  Name of SRB round 6 final bid with reduced funding

  SRB total sought

  SRB total announced

  East of England

  Oxmoor Opportunities

  1,647

  1,483

  East Midland

  Positioned for prosperity-moving forward—Coalfields

  17,000

  15,100

  Including local communities—Nottingham (GNP)

  9,000

  8,800

  Normanton regeneration—Derby

  7,000

  6,800

  Greater Humberstone—Leicester

  8,000

  7,800

  Promoting growth—Lincoln

  2,578

  2,348

  Regeneration in Buxton and the Peaks

  3,000

  2,700

  Making the Links—North West Leicestershire

  922

  800

  Connecting Northamptonshire Communities

  2,000

  1,800

  Bridging Communities—Leicestershire rural

  2,005

  1,500

  Bridging the gap—Boston

  1,316

  1,216

  New start Netherfield—Nottingham

  973

  50

  Loughborough outreach

  999

  50

  Erewash valley—Amber valley

  1000

  50

  London

  From Hardcore Homeless

  8,818

  6,000

  Changing Places, London Lives

  10,750

  8,063

  Urban Renaissance in Lewisham

  17,729

  15,900

  More London Bridge—More Opportunities for Residents and Employees/ers

  17,900

  15,210

  New Beginnings New Settlements

  5,989

  5,000

  Health Benefits Regeneration

  12,000

  9,000

  Delivering London's Manufacturing Offer in Thames Gateway South

  12,000

  10,800

  Enterprise for Communities

  3,414

  1,500

  Communities in Business: Poplar and Leaside

  23,000

  20,700

  Digital Learning Ring: The Next Generation

  5,873

  5,300

  All Change @ Camden Central

  13,860

  7,000

  The Art of Regeneration

  2,842

  2,500

  Renewal: Turning Adversity into Opportunity for Refugees and Recent Arrivals in West London

  6,500

  6,000

  The Jobs Opportunities Programme

  1,000

  900

  Putting New Heart into Grahame Park

  2,595

  2,500

  Raising Our Sights: New Ambitions for Young People in Lambeth

  10,763

  6,000

  The Circle Initiative

  5,145

  4,631

  Prosperity and Pride for Peckham

  3,000

  1,500

  Park Royal Connect

  14,955

  6,955

  Centre of Expertise for Manufacturing

  7,000

  6,300

  A Model for Best Practice: Joined Up Regeneration in the Thames Gateway

  480

  200

  The London Civic Forum—Reconnecting London

  306

  150

  Opportunity into Reality: A New Waterloo

  24,918

  19,005

  The Grid for Creative London

  9,395

  2,000

  Community Courthouse Initiative

  6,000

  200

  Community Involvement Across the London Region

  1,572

  190

  Access to Excellence for Newham's Communities

  25,000

  18,750

  Manufacturing Investment and Workforce Development in Barking and Dagenham, Havering and Thurrock

  12,500

  10,000

  454W

  WM Green Business Parks

  Creating New Working Communities Through Innovation in

  Coventry and Warwickshire

  Coalfield Communities Partnership

  The Sentinel Project

  Employment Creation—Phase 2—Hereford and Worcestershire

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  Leeds Community Social Entrepreneurs

  Positive Action for Ethnic Businesses

  Communities Regeneration Through People

  Regeneration of Ethnic Minority Communities Programme

  Centre for Regeneration Excellence

  South Yorkshire Seedcorn Loan Fund

  South Yorkshire Community Investment Fund

  Leeds Micro Loan Finance

  Yorkshire Finance to Business

  455W

  Table B

  £000

  Name of SRB round 6 final bid with reduced funding

  SRB total sought

  SRB total announced

  Keep London Working

  9,529

  4,500

  London South Central Connections

  25,000

  20,000

  The Thames Gateway London Remade Programme: Re-engineering Secondary Materials

  7,925

  5,400

  North East

  Promoting strong, Healthy and Safe communities in Co. Durham

  22,000

  20,000

  Gateshead—A New Future

  12,000

  10,800

  Middlesbrough—Accelerating the Renaissance

  20,000

  10,000

  Redcar and Cleveland—Pathways to Inclusion

  10,500

  7,875

  North Hartlepool—Headland Revival

  10,330

  7,725

  Newcastle—Going for Growth

  9,996

  7,497

  North West

  Hyndburn—People of Accrington and Church Together

  12,091

  8,000

  Pendle—The Time is Now for Nelson

  15,250

  12,000

  Wigan—Worsley Mesnes Community Gains

  15,250

  8,250

  Cumbria Rural Partnership—Distinctly Cumbrian

  4,000

  150

  South East of England

  North Kent Forward

  280

  240

  Swanley—People First

  728

  650

  Herne Bay and Whitstable Coastal Regeneration Programme

  1,134

  1,000

  Dover Urban Regeneration Programme

  2,261

  2,000

  Thanet Horizons

  13,000

  10,000

  East Kent Strategic Area Framework

  158

  50

  Pooling Our Resources: A Culture of Inclusion for Eastbourne

  7,443

  5,000

  Promoting Social Inclusion in Brighton and Hove

  6,956

  5,000

  Coastal Renaissance in East Sussex

  250

  200

  Hastings and St. Leonards—A Sea Change

  10,989

  10,000

  Ryde 2000

  6,514

  6,250

  Turning the Tide: A Bright Coastal Future

  6,995

  6,950

  Southampton Community Futures

  25,764

  15,000

  Thames Valley Social Enterprise

  1,771

  1,770

  PRREDASI—Promoting Regional Race Equality

  300

  100

  Able to do Business

  2,497

  100

  Medway Innovation Centre

  2,420

  300

  South West

  Wontford Regeneration Partnership (Exeter)

  992

  40

  Regeneration of South Western Bridport (Dorset)

  1,995

  50

  Bath Communities Improving Together

  2,000

  50

  Bid for Sutton Ward (Plymouth)

  11,200

  8,400

  Bringing Glastonbury Together

  951

  713

  Communities First in Rural Somerset (Phase II)

  1,607

  1,200

  Bringing Bristol Together

  9,900

  8,350

  Weston-super-Mare; Together

  2,950

  2,360

  West Midlands

  NW Birmingham Corridors of Regeneration

  44,363

  39,963

  Sandwell Learning Plus

  30,000

  22,500

  Regenerating the Social Economy in the West Midlands

  11,750

  3,525

  Burton—Investing in Inclusion

  8,700

  6,525

  SPARKS

  3,539

  3,185

  South Warwickshire PIE

  4,001

  3,000

  Hereford in Touch

  4,946

  3,709

  Making a Difference in North Staffordshire

  7,942

  5,004

  Improving Access to Effective Services in Telford

  2,590

  1,943

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  Netherthorpe and Upperthorpe—Sheffield

  6,500

  5,000

  South Yorkshire Black Forum

  1,200

  600

  South Yorkshire Coalfield

  90,000

  80,000

  Regen. Halifax 2000

  16,176

  12,100

  Hull City Vision

  33,300

  28,300

  Humber Works

  4,300

  3,500

  Spirit of Staithes Regeneration Initiative

  1,800

  1,083

  Train Drivers
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what previous rail service, or experience, is required by recruits as trainee drivers(a) in respect of any rail employment and (b) as drivers of yard, suburban and freight train movement in respect of the high speed train services operated by the Great Western and Great North Eastern Railway. [135404]

  Mr. Hill
  Previous rail service or experience is not a requirement for trainee drivers. First Great Western and Great North Eastern Railway are required to comply with Railtrack Group Standard GP/RT3251. This standard requires train operating companies to ensure that any person authorised to drive a train is assessed and certified as medically fit.

  High-speed Trains
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will state, in respect of the high-speed train sets currently operated by the Great North Eastern Railway, which organisations are responsible for their design, construction, commissioning and testing; who owns the sets; who leases them; who maintains them; who crews them; and who is responsible for other functions formerly carried out by the British Railways Board in relation to those sets. [135403]

  Mr. Hill
  Great Northern Eastern Railway's (GNER) fleet of vehicles are owned by, and leased from, two different rolling stock leasing companies (ROSCOs), Angel Train Contracts Ltd. and Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation. These vehicles were designed, manufactured, commissioned and tested by British Rail before privatisation. Heavy maintenance of the fleet is the responsibility of the ROSCO while light maintenance and crewing is the responsibility of GNER.

  Public Transport Subsidy
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how much was spent per head of population by each local authority in England on public transport subsidy for each of the last five years for which figures are available. [135096]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The figures requested have been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Advisory Committee on Consumer Products and the Environment
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what response he has made to the first report of his Advisory Committee on Consumer Products and the Environment. [135438]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Government welcome the first report of the Advisory Committee on Consumer Products and the Environment. It contains a number of positive recommendations on how we can reduce the impacts products make on the environment.

  I met the Committee Chair, Dr. Alan Knight, last month and indicated to him that we will be considering carefully all the Committee's recommendations for action. We are already looking at how those relating to graded labels for
  458W
  cars and homes, standards for government procurement, and the development of a consumer website to help environmental choice, could be put into practice. I will be writing to Dr. Knight to keep him informed of progress on the recommendations.

  Local Government
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what provisions have been made and guidance issued allowing referendums on elected mayors to take place on the same day as local elections. [135075]

  Ms Armstrong
  [holding answer 30 October 2000]As I told the House on 26 October 2000,Official Report, column 173–74W, we have now published guidance on new council constitutions for English local authorities, in which is stated our intention to make regulations under the Local Government Act 2000 which would allow referendums on elected mayors to take place on the same day as any ordinary local election, and to require such polls to be combined.

  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what guidance he has given to local authorities on determining the validity of petitions requiring a referendum on introducing an elected mayor. [135076]

  Ms Armstrong
  [holding answer 30 October 2000]As I told the House on 26 October 2000,Official Report, columns 173–74W, we have now published guidance on new council constitutions for English local authorities, which includes guidance on determining the validity of petitions in accordance with the provisions of the Local Authorities (Referendums) (Petitions and Directions) (England) Regulations 2000 (SI 2000/2852). To make this determination a local authority must, in particular, satisfy itself that the petition includes the names, addresses and signatures of at least 5 per cent. of the local government electors for its area.

  Clothing and Textiles
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the effect on the clothing and textiles sector of the withdrawal of compulsory competitive tendering in the public sector. [135563]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  None. There is no obvious connection between the local authority activities that were subject to competitive tendering and the health of the clothing and textile sector. The new duty of best value, which applies from 1 April 2000, will encourage the development of new markets in the provision of local authority services.

  Improved Vehicles
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many vehicles were impounded because their owners failed to buy a road fund licence; and how many were crushed in each year since 1995. [135910]
  459W
  Mr. Hill
  The wheelclamping scheme for vehicle excise duty evasion was introduced in August 1997. The following information relates to that scheme:

  Year

  Impounded

  Crushed

  1997

  557

  163

  1998

  4,838

  3,663

  1999

  10,718

  8,369

  20001

  11,962

  10,205

  1To date

  Liquified Petroleum Gas
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to extend the arrangements for conversion of vehicles from petrol or diesel to liquified petroleum gas to older vehicles. [135739]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 31 October 2000]The Powershift programme sponsored by my Department provides grants only towards the cost of converting vehicles that are under one year old to run on liquefied petroleum gas. Through Powershift we are trying to encourage vehicle manufacturers to produce production-line gas vehicles rather than the after-market conversions that currently dominate the market. Not only will production-line vehicles be much cheaper than after-market conversions, their emissions performance should also be better. Therefore, Powershift grants are targeted at new vehicles to ensure manufacturers develop the high performance systems and technologies needed to manufacture gas vehicles on the production line.

  However my Department also sponsors a Cleaner Vehicles Programme that aims to reduce emissions from existing vehicles operating in urban areas. The programme includes targeted projects to fit emission reduction technologies and to convert older vehicles to run on alternative fuels, including LPG, where it proves cost effective and environmentally beneficial to do so.

  GM Crops
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what efforts he is making to prevent the criminal damage of genetically-manipulated crops. [133659]

  Mr. Meacher
  Acts of vandalism or violence against those involved in evaluations of legally grown GM plants are totally unacceptable. The police have powers under public order legislation to deal with those who commit such acts and this has not changed. In a democratic society there is no reason for people to resort to violence against others or their property and it is right that the police use their powers to prevent this happening.

  We are continuing to explore our options for protecting the property and families of farmers participating in the farm scale evaluations, with them, the industry and the police. We are looking at how we can best secure sites, which by their very nature are difficult to protect. We have, however, consistently promised to have a science-led, open and transparent regulatory environment and this means letting people know about the sites notified to us.

  Rural White Paper
  Mr. David Heath
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment. Transport and the Regions what measures his Department will take to co-ordinate Government policy for rural areas following publication of the Rural White Paper. [133658]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Cabinet Committee on Rural Affairs already has the remit of co-ordinating the Government's policies affecting rural areas. Its tasks include looking at the policies of all Departments so as to ensure that they take account of their impact on rural areas and that they work as effectively as they can together to support rural life. The Rural White Paper will include our assessment of what more needs to be done to ensure that the rural dimension of each Department's policies is clearly identified and integrated across all Departments.

  Concrete Flues
  Miss Geraldine Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a further statement on the safety of concrete flues in dwellings. [136427]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  Last year the Government were made aware of concerns about the safety of certain flue liners which are intended for use in chimneys serving appliances burning solid fuel. The Minister for Housing and Planning made an announcement about this on 24 February 1999. To resolve these concerns my Department commissioned a risk analysis, and has considered with experts what may need to be done about existing houses and what amendments might be necessary to improve the Building Regulations approved guidance. This report was published today, and can be viewed on the DETR Website at www.construction.detr.gov.uk/bribr06.htm

  The Department's risk analyst contractor CRE Group Ltd. has been unable to show conclusively that the concerns over additional danger are well founded. As well as this, neither my Department nor the two principal housing warranty providers are aware of any fatal or other accidents that have arisen as a result of the failure of the sorts of concrete flue liners whose safety has been questioned. On the evidence that the experts have produced it therefore seems reasonable to believe that householders are unlikely to be exposed to additional dangers if they apply common sense in following combustion appliance manufacturers' advice on routine maintenance and chimney sweeping.

  There remain some doubts however about the durability of poorer quality, cheaper varieties of concrete flue liners, and owners of dwellings built since about 1990 with concrete flue liners may be faced with the need for repairs or replacements sooner than they might have expected. This should not be a risk to safety unless householders fail to carry out the proper maintenance and sweeping previously mentioned.

  Whilst not finding clear evidence of additional risks, CRE Group Ltd, has made a number of useful recommendations regarding the safety of flues in general. They include improvement of the performance standards given in the Building Regulations, improving the competence of those engaged in building, maintaining and sweeping chimneys, remaining alert to the possibility of clusters of flue failures, and reminding those householders

  461W
  who burn solid fuel as their main heating source that proper appliance maintenance and chimney sweeping are essential. Most of the recommendations are accepted in principle, and my Department will be working with the Building Regulations Advisory Committee, the DTI, and with the fuel suppliers, chimney component manufacturers and chimney engineers and sweeps to implement them as soon as practical by:
  incorporating new guidance into the Building Regulations. A new edition of the relevant Building Regulations Approved Document should be published next year and I am pleased to see that some manufacturers of concrete flue blocks have already adopted the new overall performance standards that we intend to propose in the Approved Document.
  continuing to promote both the Quality Mark and the proposals to recognise Competent Persons in the Building Regulations as ways of encouraging builders, oil and solid fuel heating engineers, chimney engineers and sweeps to improve the competence of their people. Changes in the guidance mentioned above will also encourage greater competence in ensuring the safe accommodation of combustion installations.
  collaborating with the Department of Trade and Industry and the Home Office to ensure that local authorities and fire brigades are fully briefed on the hazards associated with combustion installations in buildings, the risks of householders' exposure to them, and what they can do to remind householders about how to protect themselves. A new tool kit for this purpose was launched on 12 October by my hon. Friend, the Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs.
  working with appropriate trade associations to ensure appliance manufacturers and solid fuel suppliers and their retail outlets provide satisfactory safe operating and maintenance advice to their customers.
  working with appropriate trade associations to ensure that chimney engineers and sweeps are aware of the possible additional risks associated with concrete chimney liners, and to watch out for the possibility that individual failures may be an indication that other flues in the neighbourhood may be at risk. I have asked to be kept informed about such clusters.
  most importantly, working with the above organisations and others to make sure that our leaflet on the dangers of carbon monoxide poisoning from solid fuel and oil heating appliances is made available to the sectors of the community that earlier research has shown to be most at risk. The leaflet advises on the dangers that can arise in normal use of solid fuel and oil heating appliances and prudent maintenance and sweeping measures that prevent them from occurring.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  E-commerce
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of the cost to businesses of the EU agreement on e-commerce jurisdiction in favour of powers of courts of a consumer's country of residence; and if he will make a statement. [135565]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  My Department has made a provisional Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA) on the consumer provisions of the European Commission's proposal for a Community Regulation on jurisdiction and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (the "Brussels Regulation").

  Compared to Article 13 of the existing 1968 Brussels Convention, the Commission proposal broadened the scope for consumers to take legal action in their home country when in dispute with traders in other EU member
  462W
  states. The RIA suggests that the risk of being sued by a consumer in another member state is small, but that the Commission proposal could lead to a slight increase in legal expenses insurance premiums for those traders who take out such insurance.

  The Government opposed the part of the Commission proposal (Recital 13) that would have meant that firms maintaining internet websites would automatically have been at risk of being sued in other EU jurisdictions. The Commission's amended proposal which has just been received omits that recital. Discussions between member states in the Council working group last week suggest that the amended Commission proposal is likely to form the basis of the final agreement on the consumer provisions of the draft Regulation. My Department will prepare a revised RIA. Our provisional assessment is that in comparison with the existing Article 13, the final text is unlikely to impose substantial additional costs on traders.

  Post Offices
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will ask the Post Office Users' National Council to reconsider the guidelines for consultation by the Post Office on the closure of main offices with a view to requiring such consultation before any commercial contracts are agreed. [134508]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  I understand that the Post Office Users' National Council and the Post Office are in the process of reviewing and revising the Code of Practice on post office closures, including the consultation procedures, to see how the code might be improved and strengthened.

  Airbus A3XX
  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what is the expected percentage real return for the Department of Trade and Industry on the launch aid which has been provided for the Airbus A3XX; [135853]

  (2) what is the total value of repayments to the Department of Trade and Industry which fall due under contractual conditions on the Airbus A3XX grant aid package. [135856]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  Conditions in the A3XX launch investment contract, as with all other launch investments, remain commercially confidential.

  Launch investment is a risk and revenue sharing Government investment in the design and development of specific civil aerospace projects in the UK. The investment is not a grant and is repayable at a real rate of return, usually via levies on sales of the product developed.

  Multiple Deprivation Index
  Mr. Coleman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if his Department uses the Index of Multiple Deprivation in the allocation of funds. [134574]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  No. In 1999, the Government, co-ordinated by the Department of Trade and Industry, used ward information from the previous 1998 Index of Local Deprivation in England and its Scottish and Welsh
  463W
  equivalents to help identify areas covered by the urban strand of Objective 2 of the European Structural Funds for the period 2000–06. No similar decisions have occurred since publication of the new Indices of Deprivation 2000.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Tanzania
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many(a) external consultants and (b) departmental officials her Department employed in Tanzania between 1997 and 2000–01; and if she will list which projects they have worked on. [135217]

  Mr. Foulkes
  Between 1997 and 2000–01 this Department has directly employed more than 230 external consultants from many different countries, including as many as possible locally, on over 300 assignments to contribute to our programme in Tanzania and has increased the number of our staff in country from 14 to 26. We have also contributed resources to joint Government of Tanzania/multi-donor projects that employ local consultants. All projects in the Tanzania programme have benefited from consultancy inputs.

  Tourism Challenge Fund
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment she has made of the effectiveness of the Tourism Challenge Fund; and if she will list the countries which are taking part. [135113]

  Mr. Foulkes
  The Tourism Challenge Fund was launched at the beginning of this year and the first projects were selected in July. At present, we are finalising contractual arrangements with the successful bidders. It is too early to determine the effectiveness of the Fund as the selected projects have not yet been established. Moreover, as we are still in the process of completing the Fund's first full bidding cycle, it is also too early to evaluate policy and procedures. We intend to review the Fund's performance in the fourth quarter of 2001.

  The projects selected in the first bidding round are located in Namibia, The Gambia and Indonesia.

  Press Releases
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many press releases were issued by her Department, its agencies and non-departmental bodies in(a) 1999 and (b) 2000 to date; and how many of them have been made available on the Department's website. [135157]

  Mr. Foulkes
  This Department issued 82 press releases in 1999, and has issued 37 press releases so far in 2000. They are available on the Department's website.

  Departmental Website
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many staff her Department employs to maintain her Department's website; how 464W
  frequently each topic area within the website is updated; what expenditure has been incurred by her Department in the operation of the website in 1999–2000; and what the average number of hits on the site was in each of the last six months. [135156]

  Mr. Foulkes
  The Department for International Development has one internet manager maintaining its website. The various topic areas within the website are updated regularly, where appropriate on a daily basis. The total expenditure incurred in the operation of the website for 1999–2000 was £13,257. The average number of hits on the website for the last six months are as follows: May—38,670, June—38,081, July—39,800, August—40,199, September 37,933, October—46,863.

DEFENCE

  Trigat Weapon Programme
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received from the UK' s partners in(a) the Trigat Medium Range Anti-Tank guided weapon programme and (b) other joint programmes in which the UK is a partner about the UK's withdrawal from the Trigat programme; and if he will make a statement. [134345]

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

  Letter from Robert Walmsley to Mr. Mike Hancock, dated 1 November 2000:
  I am replying to your question to the Secretary of State for Defence concerning the Trigat Medium Range Anti-Tank guided weapon programme. This matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief of Defence Procurement and Chief Executive of the Defence Procurement Agency.
  The Ministry of Defence has received no representations from our former partners in the medium range TRIGAT programme, or from any partners on other joint programmes, about the UK's withdrawal from the programme, since this was announced on 28 July this year. The Integrated Project Team in the Defence Procurement Agency is maintaining a working level dialogue with its colleagues in other countries.

  Hunter-killer Submarines
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many nuclear hunter-killer submarines will be berthed in Devonport at a single time(a) awaiting rectification work and (b) while rectification work is being carried out; [135757]

  (2) how many hunter-killer submarines he estimates will be berthed in Devonport in order to carry out rectification work to prevent leakages in their cooling systems; [135756]

  (3) what estimate he has made of the likely duration of rectification work being carried out on hunter-killer submarines in Devonport. [135752]

  Mr. Spellar
  The full inspection programme for nuclear-powered hunter-killer submarines will not be completed until mid-November. The results of the
  465W
  inspections will then need to be analysed and a rectification programme developed for those submarines that require repair. For these reasons, it is impossible at this stage to estimate how long the repair programme at Devonport will take, or the number of submarines that will be under repair or awaiting repair there at any one time. I can confirm, however, that each repair is expected to take some months, but that it should be possible to work on more than one submarine at a time. In addition to Devonport, repairs could be undertaken at HM Naval Base Clyde.

  Roll On/Roll Off Vessels
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he plans to make an announcement about the contract for roll on/roll off vessels for his Department. [135662]

  Mr. Hoon
  I announced on 26 October 2000,Official Report, columns 413–14, that subject to final negotiations, we intend to sign a 25-year private finance initiative contract with AWSR Shipping Ltd., based in the UK, for the strategic sealift service. This will deliver the requirement of six roll on/roll off ferries identified in the Strategic Defence Review. Two of the ships for this service will be built by Harland and Wolff, securing 400–600 jobs in Northern Ireland, and four will be built in the Flensburger shipyard. As part of this contract, the ships will be fully crewed by British merchant mariners when they are in Ministry of Defence use. The contract is worth around £950 million (based on expected usage of the ships), of which we expect that about 85 per cent. will be spent in the United Kingdom.

  Naval Exercises
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the availability of live ammunition for use in naval exercises. [134930]

  Mr. Spellar
  Live ammunition is available for use by HM ships in naval exercises. Each individual ship has an annual practice allowance, some of which may be used during exercises. The quantity used in naval exercises is determined by a range of factors such as operational and training priorities and the most cost-effective balance between live and simulated firings.

  The specific allocation of ammunition is withheld in accordance with exemption 1 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information, which relates to defence, security and international relations.

  Nuclear Armaments
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the proportion of total defence spending which is to be spent on nuclear armaments. [135389]

  Mr. Spellar
  In the last financial year, 1999–2000, expenditure on the nuclear warhead programme totalled £391 million—that is, approximately 1.75 per cent. of net defence expenditure for the year.

  Luce Bay Range
  Mr. Alasdair Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the progress being made in regard to the sea bed containment of cluster bombs dropped by his Department in Luce bay. [135117]

  Mr. Spellar
  Work on the sea bed containment of the cluster bombs released in Luce bay began on 31 August 2000. The manufacture of the RENO mattresses at the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (DERA) range at West Freugh is now complete. The frames to which the mattresses will be attached have been delivered and tested. The associated equipment, including a barge and crane, required for the deployment of these mattresses is in place. Two of the 12 locations of the cluster bombs have been successfully covered and work on the containment of a third site has commenced. Progress, however, has been hampered in recent weeks by severe weather conditions. To complete the work a two-week period of good weather conditions is required.

  Mr. Alasdair Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what type of projectiles have been(a) fired and (b) dropped at the Luce Bay (Tons Warren) range in the last 12 months; and if the (i) firings and (ii) bombings were at hard targets. [135833]

  Mr. Spellar
  During the last five years, a variety of stores, both inert and live, have been released and/or fired on the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (DERA) range at West Freugh which comprises the sea danger area of Luce Bay and the land target area of Tons Warren. Bombs, rockets and missiles have been released over Luce Bay where most of the trials activities take place. Fixed and rotary wing machine guns of various calibres are also fired. Bombs are also released on the land target area and fixed and rotary wing machine guns of various calibres fired. Missiles are fired from the land out into the bay. Hard targets are normally perceived to be bunkers and vehicles such as tanks. There are no such targets at DERA West Freugh. There are, however, barges in the bay which are used for inert store releases and three large concrete areas on the land. Any live stores released on to either the concrete or the surrounding softer land are cleared by explosive ordnance demolition techniques as part of DERA's good housekeeping.

  Oil Deliveries
  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what contingency plans he has for using service drivers to deliver oil to other than essential service providers. [135943]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 31 October 2000]Contingency planning is in hand to provide military drivers if required to deliver fuel to essential service providers. Definitions of essential services, and decisions on who should receive fuel, are not a matter for the Ministry of Defence.

  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what powers he has to direct service drivers to drive oil tankers owned by private contractors or oil companies. [135942]
  467W
  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 31 October 2000]The Emergency Powers Act 1964 empowers the Defence Council to authorise the employment of the armed forces on urgent work of national importance. The provision of tankers is a matter for the oil companies and other Government Departments.

  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many service drivers are being trained to drive oil tankers. [135941]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 31 October 2000]Around 900 drivers are expected to have been trained by mid-November. These are in addition to the drivers, numbering nearly 200, who are already qualified and able to provide assistance if required.

  Sierra Leone
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many UK forces are(a) deployed in Sierra Leone and (b) about to be deployed; from which parts of the armed forces they have come; and what their mission and rules of engagement are. [135921]

  Mr. Hoon
  [holding answer 31 October 2000]The total number of troops deployed on the ground in Sierra Leone will vary, depending on the training under way, but it will be somewhat over 400, compared with the 300 prior to the announcement on 10 October 2000.

  The personnel are drawn from all three services and the Royal Fleet Auxiliary Service.

  The UK forces in Sierra Leone are employed in a training and advisory capacity, not to participate directly in combat operations. They are, however, issued with robust rules of engagement to allow them to defend themselves if necessary.

HEALTH

  AIDS Awareness
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the work of his Department in promoting awareness of AIDS and how to avoid contracting it. [134744]

  Yvette Cooper
  In the absence of a cure for AIDS or a vaccine against HIV, prevention remains our best weapon in the fight against the spread of HIV. We therefore remain committed to funding health promotion work, including awareness campaigns for groups most at risk of HIV and the general population. £3 million has been allocated to sexual health promotion work for 2000–01 including HIV/AIDS health promotion. The Department also funds the National AIDS Helpline health promotion. The Department also funds the National AIDS Helpline which provides confidential advice and information on all aspects of HIV and AIDS.

  Resuscitation Policies
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance his Department issues to(a) social services departments, (b) care home providers and (c) providers of
  468W
  care in non-residential settings concerning the development and application of resuscitation policies; and how compliance with such guidance is monitored. [134842]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 26 October 2000]Resuscitation decisions are among the most sensitive decisions that clinicians, patients and parents may have to make. Decisions whether to resuscitate patients is primarily a clinical matter for the doctor responsible for the treatment of the patient concerned. Whenever possible, the doctor should involve the patient in the decision-making, and when appropriate, their relatives or carers.

  When making resuscitation decisions the doctor should have regard to guidance on resuscitation decision-making issued by a professional and recognised body of medical opinion.

  On 5 September, the Department issued a Health Service Circular Resuscitation Policy (HSC2000/28) to National Health Service trust chief executives—copied to chairs of public health groups—which makes clear that patients' rights are central to decision-making on resuscitation.

  It is not the responsibility of social services departments, care home providers, nor providers of care in non-residential settings, to make decisions concerning resuscitation.

  In circumstances where persons in their care may have collapsed and are in need of medical attention, local procedures should have been developed which set out arrangements to deal appropriately with such cases. This protocol should be available and understood by all staff involved.

  Children in Care
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the average amount spent per child in care by each local authority in England on the placement of children in residential care for each of the last five years for which figures are available. [135097]

  Mr. Hutton
  Information on reported gross expenditure per child per week on the placement of children in residential care by local authorities is contained in the Department's key indicator graphical system. Indicator PAFB9 provides information for 1997–98, 1998–99 and 1999–2000 but is not available for earlier years. It refers to children placed in community homes. Indicator UC74 provides information for 1998–99 and earlier years on a slightly different basis as it also includes placements in secure units; it is not yet available for 1999–2000. Tables for both indicators have been placed in the Library.

  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many children were placed in residential care homes by each local authority in England in the last five years for which figures are available. [135105]
  469W
  Mr. Hutton
  The information requested is given in the table.

  Number of children1 looked after by local
  authorities who were placed in residential children's homes at 31 March, 1995 to 2000,

  England

  Residential children's homes2

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  England

  6,600

  6,400

  6,200

  6,300

  6,500

  North East Shire counties

  Durham

  74

  74

  67

  55

  72

  Northumberland

  58

  47

  45

  39

  41

  Unitary authorities

  Darlington

  30

  33

  25

  17

  14

  Hartlepool

  9

  7

  2

  1

  3

  Middlesbrough

  34

  27

  18

  17

  19

  Redcar and Cleveland

  30

  22

  24

  15

  11

  Stockton on Tees

  21

  23

  16

  25

  3

  Metropolitan districts

  Gateshead

  73

  57

  64

  48

  48

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  56

  63

  59

  64

  61

  North Tyneside

  18

  22

  21

  18

  22

  South Tyneside

  53

  50

  58

  52

  44

  Sunderland

  73

  71

  61

  70

  70

  North West Shire counties

  Cheshire

  35

  38

  48

  47

  39

  Cumbria

  38

  34

  42

  29

  33

  Lancashire

  285

  296

  291

  301

  274

  Unitary authorities

  Blackburn and Darwen

  55

  49

  70

  50

  46

  Blackpool

  47

  41

  38

  31

  30

  Halton

  2

  4

  6

  5

  6

  Warrington

  9

  12

  13

  13

  12

  Metropolitan districts

  Bolton

  47

  38

  39

  27

  29

  Bury

  26

  25

  24

  28

  30

  Manchester

  92

  110

  82

  92

  95

  Oldham

  37

  33

  42

  42

  53

  Rochdale

  31

  34

  31

  41

  25

  Salford

  37

  46

  51

  60

  94

  Stockport

  71

  72

  56

  70

  51

  Tameside

  28

  30

  31

  21

  23

  Trafford

  40

  45

  32

  47

  35

  Wigan

  33

  34

  39

  41

  41

  Merseyside metropolitan districts

  Knowsley

  16

  23

  20

  16

  19

  Liverpool

  184

  187

  203

  191

  203

  Sefton

  59

  47

  41

  49

  44

  St. Helens

  41

  37

  45

  36

  42

  Wirral

  49

  39

  33

  30

  28

  Yorkshire and Humberside Shire counties

  North Yorkshire

  22

  16

  26

  29

  24

  Unitary authorities

  East Riding Yorkshire

  14

  23

  48

  36

  36

  Kingston upon Hull

  92

  103

  113

  103

  103

  North East Lincolnshire

  38

  33

  29

  29

  32

  North Lincolnshire

  44

  43

  27

  37

  28

  York

  23

  21

  14

  18

  17

  Metropolitan districts

  Barnsley

  59

  77

  58

  57

  57

  Bradford

  44

  54

  45

  90

  99

  Calderdale

  48

  53

  48

  40

  37

  Doncaster

  43

  48

  58

  53

  65

  470W

  Number of children1 looked after by local authorities who were

  placed in residential children's homes at 31 March, 1995 to 2000,

  England

  Residential children's homes2

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  Kirklees

  86

  69

  41

  57

  48

  Leeds

  159

  166

  153

  165

  163

  Rotherham

  45

  42

  37

  33

  41

  Sheffield

  67

  75

  76

  75

  101

  Wakerfield

  41

  44

  30

  34

  37

  East Midlands Shire counties

  Derbyshire

  35

  38

  41

  40

  35

  Leicestershire

  18

  18

  16

  23

  28

  Lincolnshire

  65

  60

  53

  60

  55

  Northamptonshire

  96

  76

  69

  79

  80

  Nottinghamshire

  31

  34

  34

  38

  40

  Unitary authorities

  Derby

  37

  52

  39

  35

  48

  Leicester

  26

  23

  37

  37

  43

  Nottingham

  83

  66

  58

  75

  66

  Rutland

  1

  2

  1

  0

  0

  West Midlands Shire counties

  Shropshire

  14

  18

  20

  24

  19

  Staffordshire

  99

  88

  44

  49

  65

  Warwickshire

  14

  20

  22

  17

  16

  Worcestershire

  37

  30

  36

  40

  52

  Unitary authorities

  Herefordshire

  4

  10

  3

  10

  11

  Stoke-on-Trent

  53

  45

  55

  55

  28

  Telford and Wrekin

  32

  25

  20

  24

  31

  Metropolitan districts

  Birmingham

  272

  259

  305

  284

  280

  Coventry

  15

  23

  50

  33

  39

  Dudley

  40

  36

  40

  34

  33

  Sandwell

  30

  23

  39

  27

  28

  Solihull

  12

  14

  16

  19

  19

  Walsall

  18

  14

  17

  38

  49

  Wolverhampton

  33

  35

  25

  22

  26

  South West Shire counties

  Cornwall

  21

  25

  43

  29

  28

  Devon

  51

  40

  35

  40

  32

  Dorset

  20

  20

  15

  12

  17

  Gloucestershire

  41

  42

  45

  50

  38

  Isles of Scilly

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Somerset

  43

  49

  53

  48

  56

  Wiltshire

  5

  10

  18

  15

  17

  Unitary authorities

  Bath and North East Somerset

  7

  3

  4

  2

  4

  Bournemouth

  19

  18

  15

  14

  20

  Bristol

  87

  76

  61

  60

  50

  North Somerset

  12

  2

  3

  3

  1

  Plymouth

  33

  29

  18

  25

  31

  Poole

  11

  14

  3

  3

  8

  South Gloucestershire

  7

  7

  12

  2

  2

  Swindon

  7

  10

  8

  8

  12

  Torbay

  9

  11

  9

  7

  14

  London Inner London

  Camden

  39

  37

  35

  33

  49

  City of London

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Greenwich

  31

  41

  48

  50

  43

  Hackney

  51

  51

  48

  55

  52

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  100

  71

  54

  46

  47

  Islington

  86

  102

  86

  92

  133

  Kensington and Chelsea

  34

  29

  39

  33

  28

  Lambeth

  174

  126

  95

  124

  207

  471W

  Number of children1 looked after by local authorities who were

  placed in residential children's homes at 31 March, 1995 to 2000,

  England

  Residential children's homes2

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  Lewisham

  41

  35

  42

  56

  65

  Southwark

  48

  50

  63

  53

  54

  Tower Hamlets

  3—

  3—

  26

  35

  3—

  Wandsworth

  57

  51

  42

  39

  33

  Westminster

  69

  48

  33

  34

  27

  Outer London

  Barking and Dagenham

  22

  24

  13

  24

  38

  Barnet

  31

  27

  22

  22

  35

  Bexley

  16

  24

  15

  21

  18

  Brent

  41

  28

  21

  22

  21

  Bromley

  45

  39

  26

  24

  22

  Croydon

  53

  45

  50

  48

  53

  Ealing

  82

  63

  71

  79

  68

  Enfield

  35

  35

  40

  35

  27

  Haringey

  49

  31

  36

  44

  62

  Harrow

  22

  25

  21

  11

  21

  Havering

  36

  27

  19

  19

  25

  Hillingdon

  52

  34

  54

  68

  80

  Hounslow

  44

  40

  33

  35

  42

  Kingston upon Thames

  10

  10

  3

  16

  23

  Merton

  10

  9

  14

  14

  13

  Newham

  61

  46

  52

  43

  33

  Redbridge

  19

  14

  16

  11

  15

  Richmond upon Thames

  15

  10

  7

  8

  14

  Sutton

  7

  10

  12

  9

  8

  Waltham Forest

  33

  32

  23

  26

  29

  Eastern Shire counties

  Bedfordshire

  27

  29

  33

  33

  33

  Cambridgeshire

  31

  38

  35

  30

  23

  Essex

  93

  91

  130

  112

  123

  Hertfordshire

  69

  78

  75

  83

  72

  Norfolk

  29

  31

  67

  53

  68

  Suffolk

  43

  39

  34

  47

  50

  Unitary authorities

  Luton

  26

  20

  18

  18

  18

  Peterborough

  24

  27

  35

  19

  31

  Southend

  18

  13

  26

  13

  19

  Thurrock

  5

  11

  16

  13

  12

  South East Shire counties

  Buckinghamshire

  37

  37

  25

  27

  25

  East Sussex

  21

  23

  20

  28

  19

  Hampshire

  102

  102

  93

  103

  105

  Kent

  24

  29

  19

  119

  101

  Oxfordshire

  40

  41

  44

  36

  31

  Surrey

  89

  86

  67

  75

  80

  West Sussex

  85

  89

  80

  68

  74

  Unitary authorities

  Bracknell Forest

  13

  13

  12

  13

  15

  Brighton and Hove

  19

  25

  22

  10

  11

  Isle of Wight

  12

  8

  0

  7

  9

  Medway Towns

  15

  17

  29

  25

  25

  Milton Keynes

  28

  32

  40

  21

  3—

  Portsmouth

  26

  25

  31

  30

  30

  Reading

  41

  44

  38

  30

  22

  Slough

  38

  40

  46

  22

  21

  Southampton

  25

  29

  30

  14

  19

  West Berkshire

  19

  15

  13

  17

  15

  Windsor and Maidenhead

  26

  16

  18

  15

  12

  Wokingham

  28

  26

  26

  22

  13

  1Figures for children looked after in this table exclude agreed series of short term placements

  2Includes community homes, voluntary homes, hostels and private registered children's homes

  3Not available

  NHS Dentistry (Christchurch)
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many dental practices in the Christchurch constituency accept new NHS patients; and what the number was in March 1997. [135728]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 30 October 2000]The situation regarding which dental practices accept new national health service patients can change almost daily. In addition, practices sometimes restrict the category of patients they will accept, such as adult patients exempt from NHS charges or children. March 1997 data are not available, May 1997 data are given instead. The table shows the number of practices accepting all categories or certain categories of new NHS patient in the Christchurch constituency in May 1997 and October 2000.

  Number of dental practices accepting new NHS patients in

  Christchurch constituency

  May 1997

  October 2000

  Practices accepting all categories of new NHS patients

  2

  4

  Practices accepting certain categories of new NHS patients

  4

  4

  Total number of practices accepting some new NHS patients

  6

  8

  Correspondence
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if an urgent reply will be given to the hon. Member for Walsall, North to his letter of 4 October regarding the need for a constituent to have an operation for a tumour. [135069]

  Ms Stuart
  [holding answer 30 October 2000]A reply was sent to my hon. Friend on 30 October.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Fruit Juice Labelling
  Mr. Bill O'Brien
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the extra costs to the manufacturers of fruit juices in the UK, if the EU proposed directives are introduced; and if he will make a statement. [135045]

  Ms Stuart
  I have been asked to reply.

  United Kingdom industry has made estimates of one-off relabelling costs of up to £7 million. A more accurate assessment will be made during the period of consultation associated with the drafting of UK regulations to implement the Directive.

  Maize
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress is being made on the decision whether to add Chardon LL maize to the National List. [136382]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  We proposed the addition of Chardon LL to the UK National List in March. After objections to the proposal were raised, Mr. Alun Alesbury
  473W
  was appointed by Ministers to hear representations in relation to the proposed listing, and a hearing is currently underway.

  The Government have now learned from the French authorities that the data from French trials on varietal distinctness, uniformity and stability (DUS), which supported the Chardon application for National Listing in the UK, were based on one year's data from accredited breeders' trials and one year's data from Government-run trials. This is apparently one of the procedures allowed by the French authorities for DUS trials of new maize varieties. The relevant Directive (72/180/EEC) requires two years of official trials.

  Ministers are taking urgent legal advice on this issue and the implications of the information for the current hearing. MAFF is seeking further information from the French authorities and consulting the European Commission about the implications for National Listing decisions across the EU.

  Chardon LL will only be added to the UK National List if all the legal requirements have been fully met.

  Common Agricultural Policy
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on his recent meeting with EU agriculture Ministers to discuss further reform of the CAP. [136383]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  Together with ministerial colleagues from Denmark, Sweden and the Netherlands, I took part in discussions on the future direction of the common agricultural policy at a meeting on Capri hosted by the Italian Minister of Agricultural Policy, Mr. Alfonso Pecoraro Scanio. These discussions carried forward the fruitful co-operation between Italy, Denmark, Sweden and UK which was a feature of the 1999 Agenda 2000 negotiations on the CAP. The Dutch Minister participated in the meeting for the first time in an observer capacity. Given the challenges of EU enlargement and the WTO trade negotiations to the future of the CAP, the participating Ministers agreed a programme of collective work on reform of the CAP; and decided to meet in a similar format in the course of next year. A copy of the framework document agreed upon at the Capri meeting has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Organic Food Standards
  Ms Drown
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to review the operation of the United Kingdom Register of Organic Food Standards. [136381]

  Mr. Morley
  As part of the Modernising Government programme, my Department is now beginning a formal review of the United Kingdom Register of Organic Food Standards (UKROFS), which is a non-departmental public body sponsored by the Ministry. UKROFS exercises regulatory and supervisory responsibilities in relation to organic farming across the United Kingdom.

  The first stage of the review is expected to cover the following issues:

  (a) The effectiveness of the present arrangements for discharging the national "competent authority" functions prescribed by Council Regulation (EEC) 2092/91 for regulating organic
  474W
  farming taking full account of Government objectives for modernising public services, particularly the need for continuous improvement and better value for money; Government policy on the regulation of farming, in particular the Strategy for Agriculture, and any parallel policy statements prepared by the devolved administrations; the likely growth in the size and number of businesses in the organic farming sector; the fact that responsibility for agriculture is now devolved to the administrations in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales; and the absence of a clear legal base for UKROFS.

  (b) The continuing need for the discretionary functions currently exercised by UKROFS, including setting standards for organic produce, either where there are no EU standards or by supplementing EU standards; directly certifying producers who do not wish to register with the private sector certification bodies; and advising Ministers on organic sector issues, including commissioning R&D.

  Because UKROFS is a UK body, the Scottish Executive, the National Assembly for Wales and the Northern Ireland Assembly will be closely involved in the review. We expect to take decisions on the outcome of the first stage of the review before Easter 2001.

  Full details of the review, including advice on how to contribute, are being placed in the Library and on my Department's website.

  Flax and Hemp
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much has been paid in subsidy to farmers for growing flax and hemp during each of the past five years. [135503]

  Ms Quin
  The total amount of subsidy paid in the last five UK Exchequer financial years was as follows:

  £000

  Flax

  Hemp

  1995–96

  10,951

  24

  1996–97

  11,614

  621

  1997–98

  11,796

  1,788

  1998–99

  10,681

  1,173

  1999–2000

  10,011

  233

  All of the hemp subsidy was paid direct to farmers. For flax there are three payment scenarios. The normal arrangement is for 25 per cent. of the aid to be paid to flax contractors who have concluded cultivation contracts with farmers whereby the farmers renounce ownership of their crop. The remaining 75 per cent. of the aid is paid to processors who have concluded contracts with the contractors.

  Under the second method 100 per cent. of the aid is paid to contractors who have the straw processed on their behalf. Under the third method 25 per cent. of the aid is paid direct to farmers who have contracts with processors and the remaining 75 per cent. of the aid is paid to the processor.

  Under all three methods, the amount of aid passed on to farmers for growing the flax is dependant on the contractual arrangements they have concluded with either the contractors or the processors.

  Bees
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will urgently assess the case for
  475W
  a trial destruction of bees affected by European foul brood; and if he will offer compensation for beekeepers affected. [135671]

  Ms Quin
  The Ministry takes very seriously the threat to beekeeping from European foul brood, and is spending around £1.3 million on measures to combat European foul brood and other notifiable diseases. These include the provision of training and education to help beekeepers become more self-reliant through improved bee husbandry, and investigating alternative disease control methods to deal with serious diseases. The National Bee Unit, part of the Central Science Laboratory, with the full co-operation of affected beekeepers is conducting well publicised trials aimed at eliminating persistent European foul brood from apiaries. Preliminary results from these trials are encouraging, especially since the method used avoids the unnecessary destruction of valuable colonies. We consider this to be the best use of the funds available that are being spent in the best interests of the beekeeping industry.

  Milk in Schools
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent discussions he has had with(a) his ministerial colleagues and (b) representatives of the dairy farming sector concerning the policy of promoting milk in schools. [134401]

  Ms Quin
  School milk is an issue which Ministers discuss from time to time. No representatives of the dairy farming sector have requested a meeting specifically on this subject although I have met and continue to meet other interests which are directly involved.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Millennium Dome
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) what due diligence procedures were undertaken by the Millennium Commission prior to the award of each of the additional grants to the New Millennium Experience Company; [134494]

  (2) what the value is of lottery funds currently held by the Millennium Commission; and what the maximum value is of the Commission's outstanding financial commitments; [134609]

  (3) what the aggregate value is of lottery funds committed but not yet paid over to projects by the Millennium Commission. [134614]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  [holding answer 26 October 2000]This is a matter for the Millennium Commission. I will write to the hon. Member in my capacity as Chairman of the Commission, and place copies of my replies in the Libraries of the House.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will list the occasions on which he has issued a ministerial direction order relating to the Millennium Commission since 1 January; and if he will give details of each such order. [134619]
  476W
  Mr. Chris Smith
  [holding answer 26 October 2000]This is a matter for the Millennium Commission. I will write to the hon. Member in my capacity as Chairman of the Commission, and place copies of my reply in the Libraries of the House.

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when he last visited the Dome in his official capacity. [134603]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  [holding answer 26 October 2000]The last visit I made to the Dome in an official capacity was on 4 July 2000.

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much money he expects the Millennium Commission to receive from the sale of the Millennium Dome. [134485]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 26 October 2000]The Millennium Commission grants made to the New Millennium Experience Company (NMEC) are repayable from any operational surplus or asset disposal, including the sale of the Dome itself, achieved after the organisation has met it other contractual liabilities. Any decision on the division of proceeds from any future sale of the Dome will be made with regard to the way in which the bid is structured and the land which is required, and the need to ensure that the Lottery investment in Greenwich and English Partnerships' contribution is recognised.

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what undertakings he has received from the Minister of State, the Cabinet Office regarding further requests for Millennium Commission funds for the Dome. [135414]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 30 October 2000]I have received no undertakings from my hon. and noble Friend the Minister of State, Cabinet Office, regarding further requests for Millennium Commission funds for the Dome.

  Culture Online Service
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what discussions he has had with the BBC and other broadcasting companies regarding the establishment of a culture online service. [134491]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  [holding answer 26 October 2000]My Department is consulting a wide range of organisations, including the BBC and other broadcasters, as part of the process of developing the proposal for a new service provisionally entitled Culture Online.

  Index of Multiple Deprivation
  Mr. Coleman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if his Department uses the Index of Multiple Deprivation in the allocation of funding. [134568]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  In general terms, the Department allocates funding according to the policy priorities encapsulated in its Public Service Agreement objectives, which include economic regeneration and social inclusion.
  477W
  Both the Department and its sponsored bodies are planning to use the Index of Multiple Deprivation in relation to certain specific funding programmes. For example, the index will be one of the sources of information used by the Department to determine the location of the Creative Partnerships that will bring new cultural and creative opportunities to schoolchildren in deprived areas. The New Opportunities Fund will also use the index to help determine which local projects should be supported with National Lottery money. Spaces for Sport and the Arts, a capital programme to improve provision in primary schools, financed jointly by the Department, its lottery distributors and the Department for Education and Employment, has used the index as one means of targeting funding on particular local authorities.

  Petrol Costs (Ministerial Cars)
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the cost was in each of the past three years of petrol for his Department's fleet of ministerial cars; and how many vehicles there are in that fleet. [135036]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  The Department for Culture, Media and Sport leases four ministerial cars from the Government Car and Despatch Agency. It is that Agency which maintains records of operating costs, including fuel costs, for the vehicles.

  BBC Director General
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many meetings with the Director General of the BBC(a) he had from the general election until the appointment of Mr. Greg Dyke as Director General and (b) he has had since Mr. Dyke's appointment; and on what dates. [134828]

  Janet Anderson
  This information is available only from 1 January 1998. Since then, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has had the following meetings with Lord Birt and Mr. Dyke:

  Lord Birt

  13 March 1998

  6 April 1998

  24 November 1998

  6 July 1999

  20 July 1999

  13 September 1999

  4 November 1999

  17 November 1999

  Mr. Dyke

  28 March 2000

  6 October 2000.

  Free Television Licence
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, pursuant to his answer of 25 July 2000,Official Report, column 598W, what evidence the BBC has provided to show how money is spent on administering the free television licence scheme. [134772]

  Janet Anderson
  The BBC has not yet recharged any costs incurred in administering the scheme for free licences for those aged 75 or over, as the Department of 478W
  Social Security does not have the legal authority to reimburse the BBC until 1 November. It is the intention of the BBC to issue the first invoice to DSS within the next calendar month. All costs recharged will be supported by copy invoices of the charges incurred by the BBC.

  KPMG, the BBC's external auditor, will be providing audit reports after the end of this financial year and will express an opinion on the robustness of the costs recharged, based on a sample review of the underlying documents.

  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many pensioners who are eligible for the concessionary television licence scheme have purchased a short-term television licence and are eligible for a refund on their existing television licence. [134659]

  Janet Anderson
  Of the 2.78 million applications received by 20 October for free licences in November, 1.06 million people are due a refund on the unexpired portion of their previous television licence. 1.72 million are due no refunds because they purchased a short-term licence, or their licence was due to expire at the end of October, or adjustments were made to their easy payment scheme instalments.

  Hotels and Restaurants
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when he will publish the Government's formal response to the better regulation taskforce's report on "The Impact of Increasing Regulation—a Case Study of Hotels and Restaurants". [135829]

  Janet Anderson
  The Government's response to the report was published on 26 September. Copies of the response were deposited in the Libraries of both Houses.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Housing Benefit Fraud
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he will publish the results from the October 1999-April 2000 Area Benefit Review that assessed Housing Benefit fraud. [135258]

  Angela Eagle
  The full year's results of non-standard Housing Benefit measurement for the period October 1999 to September 2000 are expected to be available in the summer 2001.

  SERPS
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many new claimants of SERPS have been awarded SERPS(a) as soon as they became eligible, (b) less than two weeks after they became eligible, (c) two to four weeks after they became eligible, (d) four to six weeks after they became eligible and (e) more than six weeks after they became eligible, in each quarter of each of the last two years; [135269]

  (2) how many new claimants of SERPS there were in each quarter of each of the last two years. [135268]

  Mr. Rooker
  The information is not available.
  479W

  Winter Fuel Payments
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 20 July 2000,Official Report, columns 270–71W, how many people (a) were eligible for backdated winter fuel payments for (i) 1997, (ii) 1998 and (iii) 1999, (b) have contacted the winter fuel payments helpline in each month since it began, (c) have made a claim for backdated winter fuel payments, (d) received a backdated winter fuel payment before the end of September and (e) have still to receive a backdated winter fuel payment. [134783]

  Angela Eagle
  It is estimated that around a total of 1.9 million people could be eligible for payments in respect of previous winters. This includes men aged 60–64 and men and women over State Pension age who did not qualify for a Winter Fuel Payment before the extension of the scheme because they were not getting one of the qualifying benefits.

  The number of estimated to be eligible in each of the three winters of 1997–98, 1998–99 and 1999–2000 is 1.4 million. The difference in the total number eligible and the number eligible in each of the three winters is due to the fact that some people will not be eligible for payments in respect of all three winters, since they were either aged under 60 for some of the period, or turned 65 during the period and will have already received payments for the second or third winter.

  The number of calls the helpline has received during each month since it began, the winter of 1997–98, are in the table.

  Months

  Number of calls

  Winter of 1997–98 (helpline opened 5 January 1998)

  January

  30,347

  February

  13,046

  March

  142,536

  April

  52,094

  May

  10,447

  Winter of 1998–99 (helpline opened 5 October 1998)

  October

  6,561

  November

  13,206

  December

  10,233

  January

  49,338

  February

  32,455

  March

  8,237

  April

  592

  Winter of 1999–2000 (helpline opened 13 September 1999)

  September

  7,897

  October

  6,733

  November

  43,616

  December

  122,078

  January

  91,790

  February

  31,430

  Helpline from April 2000

  April

  31,502

  May

  84,336

  June

  122,265

  July

  112,263

  August

  82,905

  September

  136,812

  October

  1105,820

  1 Up to 20 October 2000

  To date the number of claims received in respect of Winter Fule Payments for past winters is 999,490.
  480W
  The number of payments issued, in respect of past winters, before the end of September is 855,354. To date that number has increased to 936,240.

  The number of claims outstanding to date are: 32,272 claims already been processed but awaiting issue; 20,707 claims returned to the customer seeking further information; 21,690 claims returned but not yet processed.

  Stakeholder Pensions
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security which bodies he has consulted to ensure that the forthcoming stakeholder advertising campaign does not lead to mis-selling or mis-buying of pensions. [134644]

  Mr. Rooker
  The forthcoming advertising campaign aims to communicate basic impartial information about pensions, and to explain the range of pensions options available, including stakeholder pensions, so that people can make informed decisions about their pensions arrangements.

  Consultation on the stakeholder pension guides for individuals, and employers included the FSA Pensions Education Forum, which includes members from the pension industry, employer representatives and other Government Departments.

  Lone Parents
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will place in the Library a copy of the written information handed to lone parents who join the New Deal for Lone Parents. [134546]

  Angle Eagle
  The documents have been place in the Library.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  School Closures
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the number of school closures by constituency in each of the last five years. [135222]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The numbers notified to my Department are contained in tables, which have been placed in the Libraries.

  Teachers (Assaults)
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what guidance his Department gives on measures teachers can take to defend themselves if attacked by pupils. [135035]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  DFEE Circular 10/98 makes it clear that teachers may use reasonable force to control or restrain pupils to prevent them from causing injury to themselves or others, and contains guidance on appropriate physical intervention measures. The guidance emphasises that the degree of force used must be in proportion to the circumstances of the incident and be the minimum needed to achieve the desired result.
  481W
  We intend to issue additional guidance to help schools and local education authorities plan their strategies for managing the behaviour of pupils with severe behavioural difficulties. Placing the use of restraint in its proper context as one element only of a school's behaviour policy, the guidance will include advice on drawing up and agreeing policies on its use, selecting appropriate training and recording and monitoring incidents.

  Overseas Teachers
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what estimate he has made of the proportion of teaching posts occupied by teachers from overseas in(a) London and (b) England and Wales in the current academic year. [134346]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The information requested is not collected centrally.

  Index of Multiple Deprivation
  Mr. Coleman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if his Department uses the Index of Multiple Deprivation in the allocation of funds. [134575]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The Index of Multiple Deprivation is used by the Department to help to identify areas which are to be invited to develop a Sure Start Programme. The index will also be used in the allocation of Nursery Education Grant for three-year-olds in 2001–02.

  New Deal for Young People
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) how many candidates have completed New Deal for Young People in the West Sussex employment area; and how many of these(a) have taken up unsubsidised employment and (b) are still in unsubsidised employment; [134625]

  (2) how many recruits to the New Deal for Young People have not completed that scheme in West Sussex in each of the last three years. [134627]

  Ms Jowell
  [holding answer 26 October 2000]The New Deal aims to help unemployed people move as quickly as possible from welfare into unsubsidised work. The support that is given continues if the young person returns to JSA. The New Deal programme is not a fixed-length course which allows you to pinpoint when a client's participation in the programme is 'complete'.

  In West Sussex Coastal Plain unit of delivery, the latest figures to August 2000 show 957 young people have started New Deal, and we know that of the 802 who have left, 421 have gained unsubsidised jobs. Of these, 317 are sustained unsubsidised jobs. We use the term 'sustained job' for those young people not returning to Jobseekers Allowance within 13 weeks of gaining a job.

  Many other young people leave the New Deal programme for jobs without informing the Employment Service or maintaining any further contact. These additional jobs do not enter the official statistics.

  School Discipline Policies
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what discussions he has had with teachers who have been physically assaulted by pupils about school discipline policies. [134685]

  Jacqui Smith
  We discuss such issues regularly as we meet representatives of the teacher associations about discipline and other issues. As a result of representations from headteachers, we recently issued new guidance for exclusion appeal panels indicates that the headteacher's decision to exclude should not be overridden in a range of circumstances including where there is violence or the threat of violence.

  Student Debt and Loans
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what the average level of student debt is after a three year course in higher education. [134686]

  Mr. Wicks
  The average debt of a borrower with a mortgage-style student loan entering repayment at the start of the financial year 1999–2000, the latest date for which data are available, was £3,210.

  Information on private sector debt such as overdrafts and other commercial loans is not available centrally.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what representations he has received about the student loan repayment administration regulations. [134723]

  Mr. Wicks
  The regulations governing the repayment of student loans through the tax system from April 2000 were subject to wide consultation. We received a number of helpful suggestions from employer representatives about new arrangements, which are aligned closely to the administration of tax and national insurance. We have announced that we will conduct a review of the impact of the regulations on small businesses in July 2001 and we plan to conduct a full evaluation of the scheme in 2003.

  School Leavers (Gap Year)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what proportion of school leavers take a gap year before entering higher education; and what the figure was in 1997–98. [134687]

  Mr. Wicks
  The latest available information is given in the following table. The figures cover those students with two or more A levels who gain a place on a full-time undergraduate course via the University and College Admissions Service (UCAS) and then defer entry for a year. Students who defer their application to UCAS because they are taking a gap year are therefore excluded.

  Accepted applicants with two or more A levels via the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service (UCAS)

  Year for which applicants were accepted for entry

  Autumn 1997

  Autumn 1999

  All accepted applicants with two or more A levels

  183,123

  183,852

  of which:

  proportion deferring entry for a year

  8.0

  8.8

  Commercial Sponsorship (Higher Education)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what steps he is taking to increase commercial sponsorship in higher education. [134710]

  Mr. Wicks
  Higher education institutions generate funding from a variety of commercial sources including sponsorship, donations, fees for provision of education and training, contract research and other services. They do so without prejudice to their public funding, while the Higher Education Reach-Out to Business and the Community fund encourages more and closer relationships between industry and higher education. In addition some commercial organisations offer financial support to students in the form of sponsorship. From September 2001 the Government will raise to £4,000 the amount of bursary income that a student may receive from a sponsor before any deduction is made in the level of financial support for which they may be eligible.

  Teachers (Drug Use)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what disciplinary action his Department advises should be taken against teachers who are found to have used illegal drugs. [134716]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  We take a very serious view of all cases in which teachers are convicted of offences involving illegal drugs, but under the School Standards and Framework Act 1998, as with previous legislation under the previous administration, it is for governing bodies of schools to decide how to exercise their disciplinary powers in particular cases of misconduct. They must treat each case on its merits. In our experience employers also take these cases very seriously, however, and a teacher who is convicted of an offence involving illegal drugs will almost invariably be dismissed. Such cases are also reported to my Department so that the Secretary of State can consider exercising his powers under the Education (Restriction of Employment) Regulations 2000 to bar the person from further employment as a teacher, or other work involving regular contact with children or young people in the education service.

  Sexual Relationships
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what guidance is issued to schools about the approach towards sexual relationships between pupils aged(a) under 16 years and (b) 16 years or above. [134718]

  Jacqui Smith
  Sexual relationships involving children under 16 are a criminal offence. Our recently published Sex and Relationship Education guidance sets out the procedure teachers should follow if they become aware that a child under the age of 16 is having, or contemplating having, sex. Our guidance also explains the benefits of and the reasons for young people delaying sexual activity, and this is backed up by our campaign to reduce teenage pregnancies.

  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what his Department's policy is towards sexual relationships discovered between teaching staff and schoolchildren aged 16 years or above. [134938]
  484W
  Ms Estelle Morris
  A sexual relationship between a teacher and a pupil is a very grave breach of trust regardless of whether the pupil is aged 16 or above. It is regarded as misconduct, and is grounds for disciplinary action, including dismissal, by employers. Such cases are also reported to my Department so that the Secretary of State can consider exercising his powers under the Education (Restriction of Employment) Regulations 2000 to bar the person from further employment as a teacher, or other work involving regular contact with children or young people in the education service.

  Under the proposals in the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Bill, it would become a criminal offence for a person aged 18 or over who is looking after children under 18 receiving full-time education at an educational institution to engage in any sexual activity with a child receiving such education at that institution. The Bill is currently before the House of Lords.

  Performance Management Visits (North-west Schools)
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many schools in the north-west have successfully used the DfEE website to book a performance management visit; and what percentage of the total number of schools in the north-west this constitutes. [134769]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  As of 25 October 2000, 60 schools in the north-west region have accessed the Department's website to book a performance management visit. This constitutes almost 2 per cent. of all schools in the north-west. Nationally, however, usage currently averages 9 per cent., representing a range from almost 2 per cent. up to 20 per cent. of schools in other regions using the website to book performance management visits.

  Schools can book performance management visits online or using paper forms. Such bookings started property in September 2000. It is too early to draw conclusions about take-up of the online process.

  Foundation Degrees
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on his plans for foundation degrees. [134795]

  Mr. Wicks
  The core features of foundation degrees were set out in a prospectus issued by the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) in July. These features will ensure that the foundation degree becomes a valued vocational HE qualification that meets employers' needs. The prospectus also invited bids from consortia of higher education institutions, further education colleges and employers, to design and develop the prototype foundation degree programmes.

  HEFCE received proposals from 56 consortia, many including more than one higher education institution, by the 11 October deadline. This represents almost two-thirds of institutions with degree awarding powers drawn from across the higher education sector. We welcome this enthusiastic response and clear commitment to foundation degrees. The successful consortia will be announced in late November.

  Teacher Numbers
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many full-time and part-time teachers are currently employed by each education authority. [134902]

  January 2000

  Local authority

  Full-time

  Part-time (headcount)

  Part-time (fte)

  Total (fte)

  City of London

  10

  10

  1—

  20

  Camden

  1,150

  330

  140

  1,290

  Greenwich

  1,800

  460

  220

  2,020

  Hackney

  1,370

  200

  100

  1,470

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  860

  200

  110

  970

  Islington

  1,210

  220

  130

  1,340

  Kensington and Chelsea

  560

  120

  60

  610

  Lambeth

  1,370

  390

  200

  1,570

  Lewisham

  1,630

  490

  240

  1,870

  Southwark

  1,600

  260

  110

  1,720

  Tower Hamlets

  1,880

  350

  220

  2,100

  Wandsworth

  1,470

  360

  170

  1,640

  City of Westminster

  1,040

  170

  90

  1,130

  Barking and Dagenham

  1,380

  110

  60

  1,430

  Barnet

  2,320

  650

  330

  2,660

  Bexley

  1,780

  240

  130

  1,910

  Brent

  1,930

  300

  140

  2,070

  Bromley

  2,140

  390

  180

  2,320

  Croydon

  2,440

  700

  400

  2,840

  Ealing

  2,040

  320

  150

  2,200

  Enfield

  2,390

  430

  300

  2,700

  Haringey

  1,690

  230

  130

  1,820

  Harrow

  1,170

  470

  190

  1,360

  Havering

  1,690

  270

  160

  1,850

  Hillingdon

  1,950

  310

  150

  2,100

  Hounslow

  1,770

  280

  150

  1,920

  Kingston upon Thames

  930

  240

  120

  1,050

  Merton

  1,010

  220

  110

  1,120

  Newham

  2,230

  140

  80

  2,310

  Redbridge

  1,990

  310

  160

  2,140

  Richmond upon Thames

  850

  380

  170

  1,020

  Sutton

  1,320

  290

  150

  1,470

  Waltham Forest

  1,870

  270

  270

  140

  Birmingham

  9,200

  1,220

  610

  9,820

  Coventry

  2,540

  430

  230

  2,770

  Dudley

  2,560

  270

  140

  2,710

  Sandwell

  2,490

  350

  180

  2,670

  Solihull

  1,760

  300

  160

  1,920

  Walsall

  2,130

  360

  210

  2,340

  Wolverhampton

  2,100

  270

  130

  2,230

  Knowsley

  1,580

  120

  60

  1,640

  Liverpool

  3,930

  300

  170

  4,100

  St. Helens

  1,510

  110

  50

  1,560

  Sefton

  2,380

  290

  140

  2,520

  Wirral

  2,790

  340

  180

  2,960

  Bolton

  2,380

  210

  100

  2,480

  Bury

  1,390

  160

  80

  1,470

  Manchester

  3,500

  350

  200

  3,690

  Oldham

  2,100

  230

  110

  2,210

  Rochdale

  1,770

  200

  100

  1,870

  Salford

  1,900

  60

  30

  1,930

  Stockport

  2,040

  340

  170

  2,210

  Tameside

  1,860

  170

  100

  1,950

  Trafford

  1,800

  230

  110

  1,900

  Wigan

  2,550

  250

  130

  2,680

  Barnsley

  1,590

  90

  50

  1,630

  Doncaster

  2,510

  300

  150

  2,660

  Rotherham

  2,240

  240

  130

  2,370

  Sheffield

  3,510

  880

  460

  3,970

  Bradford

  4,250

  750

  330

  4,580

  Calderdale

  1,680

  230

  120

  1,800

  Kirklees

  3,040

  500

  250

  3,290

  Leeds

  5,730

  670

  360

  6,090

  Wakefield

  2,510

  160

  70

  2,580

  486W
  Ms Estelle Morris
  The number of qualified regular teachers in the maintained sector of each local authority are shown in the following table.
  487W

  January 2000

  Local authority

  Full-time

  Part-time (headcount)

  Part-time (fte)

  Total (fte)

  Gateshead

  1,550

  160

  70

  1,620

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  2,010

  250

  110

  2,120

  North Tyneside

  1,490

  200

  100

  1,600

  South Tyneside

  1,260

  110

  40

  1,310

  Sunderland

  2,530

  150

  80

  2,610

  Isles of Scilly

  20

  10

  1—

  20

  Bath and North East Somerset

  1,210

  290

  140

  1,350

  City of Bristol

  2,410

  640

  270

  2,680

  North Somerset

  1,240

  230

  120

  1,360

  South Gloucestershire

  1,860

  430

  230

  2,090

  Hartlepool

  790

  50

  30

  820

  Middlesbrough

  1,230

  110

  60

  1,290

  Redcar and Cleveland

  1,230

  140

  60

  1,290

  Stockton on Tees

  1,610

  190

  90

  1,700

  City of Kingston upon Hull

  1,940

  210

  140

  2,080

  East Riding of Yorkshire

  2,260

  420

  220

  2,490

  North East Lincolnshire

  1,300

  150

  70

  1,370

  North Lincolnshire

  1,190

  200

  90

  1,280

  North Yorkshire

  4,310

  1,040

  490

  4,800

  York

  1,180

  320

  160

  1,340

  Bedfordshire

  3,010

  560

  290

  3,290

  Luton

  1,480

  240

  120

  1,600

  Buckinghamshire

  3,390

  860

  490

  3,880

  Milton Keynes

  1,600

  250

  120

  1,730

  Derbyshire

  5,090

  1,050

  540

  5,640

  Derby

  1,710

  340

  150

  1,860

  Dorset

  2,500

  550

  270

  2,770

  Poole

  930

  150

  70

  1,000

  Bournemouth

  980

  190

  110

  1,080

  Durham

  3,980

  320

  160

  4,140

  Darlington

  760

  70

  30

  790

  East Sussex

  3,150

  810

  390

  3,540

  Brighton and Hove

  1,440

  390

  200

  1,640

  Hampshire

  8,000

  1,690

  910

  8,910

  Portsmouth

  1,330

  170

  90

  1,410

  Southampton

  1,500

  330

  130

  1,630

  Leicestershire

  4,330

  1,330

  550

  4,880

  Leicester

  2,310

  560

  260

  2,570

  Rutland

  210

  10

  1—

  210

  Staffordshire

  6,260

  940

  450

  6,710

  Stoke-on-Trent

  1,810

  170

  90

  1,900

  Wiltshire

  2,740

  680

  350

  3,080

  Swindon

  1,370

  240

  120

  1,490

  Bracknell Forest

  670

  150

  80

  760

  Windsor and Maidenhead

  870

  200

  100

  970

  West Berkshire

  1,310

  280

  130

  1,440

  Reading

  880

  250

  90

  970

  Slough

  920

  170

  80

  1,000

  Wokingham

  1,120

  330

  120

  1,240

  Cambridgeshire

  3,500

  750

  380

  3,890

  Peterborough

  1,510

  190

  90

  1,600

  Cheshire

  5,160

  860

  420

  5,580

  Halton

  1,080

  100

  60

  1,140

  Warrington

  1,530

  230

  90

  1,620

  Devon

  4,350

  1,380

  590

  4,940

  Plymouth

  2,000

  320

  160

  2,160

  Torbay

  800

  220

  110

  910

  Essex

  9,490

  1,640

  740

  10,240

  Southend on Sea

  1,210

  220

  140

  1,350

  Thurrock

  1,030

  120

  50

  1,080

  Herefordshire

  1,150

  320

  140

  1,290

  Worcestershire

  3,830

  790

  370

  4,200

  Kent

  10,140

  2,340

  1,020

  11,150

  Medway

  1,940

  390

  180

  2,130

  Lancashire

  8,930

  1,470

  760

  9,700

  Blackburn with Darwen

  1,280

  180

  90

  1,380

  Blackpool

  960

  120

  60

  1,020

  Nottinghamshire

  5,440

  1,040

  510

  5,940

  Nottingham

  1,900

  330

  160

  2,060

  Shropshire

  1,860

  340

  170

  2,030

  Telford and Wrekin

  1,230

  220

  110

  1,340

  Cornwall

  3,380

  870

  320

  3,700

  488W 489W

  January 2000

  Local authority

  Full-time

  Part-time (headcount)

  Part-time (fte)

  Total (fte)

  Cumbria

  3,730

  910

  480

  4,210

  Gloucestershire

  4,010

  1,260

  600

  4,610

  Hertfordshire

  7,950

  1,910

  970

  8,920

  Isle of Wight

  970

  180

  90

  1,060

  Lincolnshire

  4,650

  1,270

  400

  5,050

  Norfolk

  5,360

  980

  480

  5,840

  Northamptonshire

  5,060

  840

  430

  5,490

  Northumberland

  2,320

  560

  260

  2,590

  Oxfordshire

  4,050

  1,060

  540

  4,590

  Somerset

  3,150

  750

  350

  3,500

  Suffolk

  4,880

  990

  510

  5,390

  Surrey

  6,440

  1,560

  820

  7,260

  Warwickshire

  3,620

  830

  420

  4,030

  West Sussex

  4,900

  1,480

  630

  5,520

  England

  367,150

  68,020

  33,350

  400,500

  1Indicates less than five.

  Note:

  All numbers have been rounded to the nearest 10. Rounded totals may not be the sum of the rounded component parts.

  The number of regular teachers in the maintained sector has increased by 6,900 since January 1998.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many teaching vacancies there are by subject in each education authority in England. [134904]

  Mathematics

  Information Technology

  All Sciences

  French

  German

  Other Languages

  French or German

  All Languages

  English

  Drama

  City of London

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Camden

  5

  1

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  Greenwich

  2

  0

  3

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  Hackney

  2

  1

  5

  0

  1

  0

  0

  1

  1

  0

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  3

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  Islington

  1

  1

  1

  0

  0

  1

  0

  1

  0

  0

  Kensington and Chelsea

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Lambeth

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  5

  0

  Lewisham

  3

  3

  0

  2

  0

  0

  0

  2

  5

  0

  Southwark

  4

  0

  2

  1

  0

  1

  0

  1

  4

  4

  Tower Hamlets

  6

  1

  2

  0

  0

  2

  1

  3

  4

  2

  Wandsworth

  5

  0

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Westminster

  3

  1

  1

  0

  0

  1

  0

  1

  3

  0

  Barking and Dagenham

  2

  0

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  0

  Barnet

  5

  0

  2

  2

  0

  0

  0

  2

  2

  1

  Bexley

  4

  3

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  1

  0

  Brent

  1

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  Bromley

  1

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  Croydon

  5

  1

  4

  0

  0

  4

  0

  4

  4

  0

  Ealing

  0

  0

  2

  3

  0

  0

  0

  3

  1

  0

  Enfield

  0

  1

  3

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  3

  1

  Haringey

  2

  0

  5

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  Harrow

  4

  0

  1

  0

  0

  2

  0

  2

  4

  0

  Havering

  2

  0

  6

  2

  0

  0

  1

  3

  2

  0

  Hillingdon

  4

  1

  2

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  0

  Hounslow

  0

  1

  1

  1

  1

  0

  0

  2

  0

  0

  Kingston upon Thames

  4

  2

  2

  0

  0

  1

  0

  1

  1

  0

  Merton

  4

  2

  2

  0

  0

  1

  0

  1

  1

  0

  Newham

  0

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  6

  0

  Redbridge

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  Richmond upon Thames

  4

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  3

  0

  Sutton

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Waltham Forest

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Birmingham

  4

  2

  2

  2

  0

  0

  0

  2

  2

  0

  Coventry

  2

  0

  3

  2

  1

  0

  0

  3

  1

  0

  Dudley

  3

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  0

  Sandwell

  2

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  0

  Solihull

  0

  0

  1

  0

  1

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  Walsall

  1

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  1

  0

  Wolverhampton

  1

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  490W
  Ms Estelle Morris
  The number of vacancies for qualified classroom teachers in maintained secondary schools by subject and English local authority at January 2000 are contained in the table:
  491W

  Mathematics

  Infromation Technology

  All Sciences

  French

  German

  Other Languages

  French or German

  All Languages

  English

  Drama

  Knowsley

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Liverpool

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  1

  1

  0

  St. Helens

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Sefton

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  1

  0

  0

  Wirral

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  1

  3

  0

  Bolton

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  Bury

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Manchester

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Oldham

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Rochdale

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  Salford

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Stockport

  0

  0

  2

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  0

  0

  Tameside

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Trafford

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Wigan

  2

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  2

  Barnsley

  1

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Doncaster

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Rotherham

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Sheffield

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Bradford

  1

  0

  4

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  Calderdale

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Kirklees

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  1

  0

  2

  0

  0

  Leeds

  4

  1

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Wakefield

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Gateshead

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  2

  0

  North Tyneside

  6

  1

  2

  0

  0

  1

  0

  1

  1

  0

  South Tyneside

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Sunderland

  1

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  Isles of Scilly

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Bath and North East Somerset

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  City of Bristol

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  North Somerset

  2

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  South Gloucestershire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Hartlepool

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Middlesbrough

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Redcar and Cleveland

  0

  1

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  Stockton on Tees

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  1

  0

  1

  0

  0

  City of Kingston upon Hull

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  East Riding of Yorkshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  North East Lincolnshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  North Lincolnshire

  1

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  North Yorkshire

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  York

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  1

  0

  0

  Bedfordshire

  4

  0

  2

  0

  0

  1

  0

  1

  2

  0

  Luton

  3

  0

  2

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  0

  Buckinghamshire

  4

  1

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  Milton Keynes

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Derbyshire

  2

  0

  1

  0

  1

  0

  0

  1

  0

  1

  Derby

  3

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  1

  Dorset

  1

  1

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  1

  Poole

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Bournemouth

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Durham

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Darlington

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  East Sussex

  3

  2

  4

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  0

  0

  Brighton and Hove

  3

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Hampshire

  7

  3

  7

  1

  0

  0

  4

  5

  8

  0

  Portsmouth

  6

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Southampton

  1

  2

  5

  0

  1

  0

  1

  2

  2

  1

  Leicestershire

  2

  1

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  Leicester

  1

  2

  2

  0

  0

  0

  2

  2

  1

  1

  Rutland

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Staffordshire

  4

  0

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Stoke-on-Trent

  5

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  2

  0

  0

  Wiltshire

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  1

  0

  Swindon

  1

  0

  1

  0

  1

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  Bracknell Forest

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  1

  0

  Windsor and Maidenhead

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  West Berkshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Reading

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Slough

  4

  1

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  0

  Wokingham

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  1

  0

  1

  1

  0

  Cambridgeshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Peterborough

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Cheshire

  0

  0

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  3

  0

  492W 493W

  Mathematics

  Infromation Technology

  All Sciences

  French

  German

  Other Languages

  French or German

  All Languages

  English

  Drama

  Halton

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Warrington

  0

  0

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Devon

  1

  0

  2

  0

  0

  1

  0

  1

  0

  0

  Plymouth

  3

  2

  3

  0

  0

  1

  0

  1

  2

  0

  Torbay

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Essex

  12

  3

  6

  2

  1

  0

  0

  3

  6

  2

  Southend on Sea

  3

  0

  3

  1

  1

  1

  0

  2

  0

  0

  Thurrock

  1

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  0

  Herefordshire

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  Worcestershire

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Kent

  13

  1

  4

  4

  0

  0

  0

  4

  5

  1

  Medway

  1

  1

  1

  2

  0

  0

  0

  2

  1

  0

  Lancashire

  0

  0

  0

  2

  0

  1

  0

  3

  0

  0

  Blackburn with Darwen

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  1

  0

  Blackpool

  1

  0

  1

  0

  0

  1

  0

  1

  1

  0

  Nottinghamshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Nottingham

  1

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  0

  Shropshire

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Telford and Wrekin

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Cornwall

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Cumbria

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Gloucestershire

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  Hertfordshire

  0

  0

  3

  0

  0

  1

  0

  1

  0

  0

  Isle of Wight

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Lincolnshire

  1

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  0

  0

  Norfolk

  3

  0

  4

  0

  0

  2

  0

  2

  1

  0

  Northamptonshire

  3

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Northumberland

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Oxfordshire

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Somerset

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  1

  0

  0

  Suffolk

  2

  0

  2

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  2

  0

  Surrey

  7

  0

  4

  1

  1

  0

  2

  4

  1

  0

  Warwickshire

  1

  0

  1

  0

  1

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  West Sussex

  2

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  3

  3

  2

  0

  England

  233

  56

  156

  42

  11

  30

  26

  107

  129

  233

  History

  Social Sciences

  Geography

  Religious Education

  Design and Technology

  Commercial and Business Studies

  Art, Craft or Design

  Music

  Physical Education

  Other main and combined subjects

  Totals

  City of London

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Camden

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  5

  13

  Greenwich

  0

  0

  0

  2

  2

  0

  1

  1

  0

  1

  13

  Hackney

  0

  0

  1

  1

  1

  0

  1

  0

  2

  6

  22

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  8

  Islington

  0

  0

  0

  1

  3

  0

  1

  0

  0

  2

  11

  Kensington and Chelsea

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  Lambeth

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  9

  Lewisham

  0

  0

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  5

  20

  Southwark

  0

  0

  1

  2

  2

  0

  1

  0

  1

  6

  28

  Tower Hamlets

  0

  0

  0

  2

  1

  0

  1

  1

  0

  2

  25

  Wandsworth

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  1

  10

  Westminster

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  3

  12

  Barking and Dagenham

  0

  0

  0

  0

  3

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  9

  Barnet

  0

  0

  0

  3

  2

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  19

  Bexley

  0

  2

  0

  1

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  2

  16

  Brent

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  2

  5

  Bromley

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  3

  Croydon

  0

  0

  1

  0

  6

  0

  1

  0

  0

  2

  28

  Ealing

  0

  0

  1

  0

  5

  1

  1

  0

  0

  3

  17

  Enfield

  0

  0

  1

  0

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  12

  Haringey

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  2

  12

  Harrow

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  14

  Havering

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  3

  17

  Hillingdon

  0

  0

  0

  0

  3

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  13

  Hounslow

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  5

  Kingston upon Thames

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  7

  Merton

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  3

  0

  0

  13

  Newham

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  3

  14

  Redbridge

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Richmond upon Thames

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  11

  Sutton

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Waltham Forest

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  3

  Birmingham

  1

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  4

  18

  494W 495W

  History

  Social Sciences

  Geography

  Religious Education

  Design and Technology

  Commercial and Business Studies

  Art, Craft or Design

  Music

  Physical Education

  Other main and combined subjects

  Totals

  Coventry

  0

  0

  2

  0

  2

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  14

  Dudley

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  0

  1

  9

  Sandwell

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  2

  0

  8

  Solihull

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  0

  0

  6

  Walsall

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  6

  Wolverhampton

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  4

  Knowsley

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  1

  4

  Liverpool

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  St. Helens

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Sefton

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  5

  Wirral

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  7

  Bolton

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Bury

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Manchester

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Oldham

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  2

  Rochdale

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  Salford

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  2

  Stockport

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  1

  1

  0

  0

  6

  Tameside

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Trafford

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Wigan

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  9

  Barnsley

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  Doncaster

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Rotherham

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Sheffield

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Bradford

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  17

  25

  Calderdale

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Kirklees

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  Leeds

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  10

  Wakefield

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Gateshead

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  4

  North Tyneside

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  13

  South Tyneside

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  Sunderland

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  3

  Isles of Scilly

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Bath and North East Somerset

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  City of Bristol

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  4

  North Somerset

  0

  1

  0

  0

  1

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  6

  South Gloucestershire

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Hartlepool

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Middlesbrough

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  2

  Redcar and Cleveland

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  5

  Stockton on Tees

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  1

  0

  4

  City of Kingston upon Hull

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  East Riding of Yorkshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  North East Lincolnshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  North Lincolnshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  North Yorkshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  0

  1

  0

  5

  York

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  5

  Bedfordshire

  0

  0

  0

  1

  2

  0

  0

  2

  0

  5

  19

  Luton

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  9

  Buckinghamshire

  0

  0

  1

  0

  5

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  14

  Milton Keynes

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  Derbyshire

  0

  0

  1

  2

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  1

  10

  Derby

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  8

  Dorset

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  0

  0

  6

  Poole

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Bournemouth

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  2

  Durham

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Darlington

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  East Sussex

  0

  0

  0

  0

  3

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  14

  Brighton and Hove

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  4

  Hampshire

  1

  0

  0

  1

  8

  0

  1

  3

  2

  3

  49

  Portsmouth

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  1

  0

  0

  3

  13

  Southampton

  0

  1

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  16

  Leicestershire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  6

  Leicester

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  9

  Rutland

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Staffordshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  3

  10

  Stoke-on-Trent

  0

  0

  1

  1

  2

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  13

  Wiltshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  4

  Swindon

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  4

  Bracknell Forest

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  5

  Windsor and Maidenhead

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  5

  West Berkshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Reading

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Slough

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  10

  Wokingham

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  3

  Cambridgeshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  496W 497W

  History

  Social Sciences

  Geography

  Religious Education

  Design and Technology

  Commercial and Business Studies

  Art, Craft or Design

  Music

  Physical Education

  Other main and combined subjects

  Totals

  Peterborough

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Cheshire

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  4

  10

  Halton

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  3

  Warrington

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  Devon

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  6

  Plymouth

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  13

  Torbay

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  3

  Essex

  1

  3

  0

  5

  10

  5

  0

  3

  4

  5

  68

  Southend on Sea

  0

  0

  1

  0

  1

  4

  0

  0

  2

  0

  15

  Thurrock

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  0

  0

  1

  1

  0

  9

  Herefordshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  3

  Worcestershire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  3

  Kent

  0

  0

  0

  1

  4

  1

  0

  2

  0

  8

  44

  Medway

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  9

  Lancashire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  3

  Blackburn with Darwen

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  5

  Blackpool

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  6

  Nottinghamshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Nottingham

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  0

  5

  Shropshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Telford and Wrekin

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  3

  Cornwall

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  2

  Cumbria

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Gloucestershire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  4

  Hertfordshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  7

  Isle of Wight

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Lincolnshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  3

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  8

  Norfolk

  1

  0

  0

  1

  1

  0

  0

  1

  0

  1

  15

  Northamptonshire

  1

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  7

  Northumberland

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Oxfordshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Somerset

  0

  0

  1

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  4

  Suffolk

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  1

  11

  Surrey

  0

  0

  1

  2

  2

  0

  0

  1

  0

  2

  24

  Warwickshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  0

  6

  West Sussex

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  10

  England

  12

  8

  25

  36

  110

  17

  24

  35

  30

  140

  1,141

  The number of regular teachers in maintained schools increased by 6,900 between January 1998 and January 2000.

  A survey by my department in the week of September 2000 of maintained secondary school in England indicated that there were about 1,000 vacancies at all levels of teachers.

  Teachers Training
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many teacher training course vacancies there are for(a) infant, (b) junior and (c) secondary school courses in each institution offering such courses. [134903]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  Data on recruitment to initial teacher training courses starting in 2000–01 for each institution in England are not yet available.

  Graduates (Unemployment Benefit)
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what percentage of graduates were claiming unemployment benefit a year after completing their university courses in each of the past five years in England. [134906]

  Mr. Wicks
  The information is not held centrally. The latest available data on the unemployment rates of newly qualified graduates, which show the position six months after graduation, are given in the table.
  498W

  Destinations of full-time first degree graduates from higher

  education institutions in England six months after graduation

  of which, those who were unemployed1

  year of graduation

  Total graduates with known destination

  Number

  Percentage

  1994–95

  136,455

  12,514

  9.2

  1995–96

  145,930

  11,784

  8.1

  1996–97

  146,486

  10,137

  6.9

  1997–98

  147,888

  8.570

  5.8

  1998–99

  152,404

  8,426

  5.5

  1The data do not indicate whether these graduates were claiming unemployment benefit or not.

  Disabled Students (University Applications)
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what initiatives are being pursued by his Department to encourage disabled people to apply for university courses. [134908]

  Mr. Wicks
  The Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) is committed to helping institutions to improve and integrate provision for students with disabilities in higher education. The council aims to increase the number of students participating in HE, to improve provision for them, to facilitate the dissemination of good practice and to increase institutional collaboration to ensure that resources are used effectively.

  Disabled Students Allowances (DSAs), which help remove barriers to participation, are non-repayable grants available to students in higher education to cover the

  499W
  additional course-related costs they incur because of their disability. Since 1998 the means test for DSAs has been abolished and the maximum amount available for non-medical helpers has more that doubled to £10,505. This year, we have extended eligibility for DSAs to part-time and postgraduate students.

  GCSEs
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what percentage of examinees failed the GCSE in each subject in the past three academic years. [134934]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The percentages of examinees that failed to achieve a GCSE pass grade (A*-G) in the past three academic years, analysed by subject are:

  Percentage

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  Biological sciences

  0.7

  0.6

  0.7

  Chemistry

  0.5

  0.4

  0.4

  Physics

  0.6

  0.5

  0.4

  Single science

  8.0

  7.7

  7.8

  Double science

  2.4

  1.8

  1.9

  Other science

  6.1

  5.0

  5.2

  Mathematics

  5.0

  3.8

  3.4

  Computer studies

  3.7

  4.1

  3.9

  Design and Technology

  4.1

  3.6

  3.6

  Information systems

  3.6

  2.7

  3.0

  Home economics

  5.6

  4.7

  5.4

  Business studies

  4.0

  4.2

  4.6

  Geography

  2.7

  2.9

  2.7

  History

  3.5

  3.1

  2.9

  Economics

  4.2

  3.8

  3.5

  Humanities

  4.6

  4.4

  4.2

  Social sciences

  5.4

  5.1

  5.0

  Physical education

  1.1

  1.1

  0.9

  Vocational studies

  5.8

  5.6

  5.7

  Art and Design

  2.2

  2.5

  2.2

  English

  1.0

  0.9

  1.1

  English literature

  1.6

  1.6

  1.7

  Drama

  1.3

  1.2

  1.5

  Communication studies

  2.2

  2.8

  2.7

  French

  1.5

  1.3

  1.7

  German

  1.3

  1.2

  1.5

  Spanish

  2.0

  2.2

  1.7

  Other modern languages

  2.2

  2.3

  2.5

  Classical studies

  1.8

  1.6

  2.0

  Music

  3.1

  3.1

  3.2

  Religious studies

  4.4

  4.2

  4.4

  All subjects

  2.7

  2.4

  2.4

  Whole-class Teaching
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what recent assessment he has made of the advantages of whole-class teaching. [135033]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  Effective whole-class teaching is a key characteristic of high quality teaching in primary schools. Reviews of the research evidence on whole class teaching and other issues were published as part of the National Literacy and Numeracy Strategies. The literacy hour and daily mathematics lesson, which were introduced in September 1998 and 1999 respectively, include substantial elements of whole class teaching in order to maximise the amount of direct teaching that all pupils receive. The Office for Standards in Education has 500W
  confirmed that these lessons have resulted in "better teaching and better achievement in English and mathematics."

  School Inspectors
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many school inspectors there are in each local education authority; and how much is spent by each local education authority to fund school inspectors. [135223]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  Local education authorities employ staff to work with schools to raise standards. Those staff are generally known as inspectors or advisers. The numbers of local authority employed staff in these categories are not centrally collected. A number of those staff are registered inspectors and team inspectors who also carry out school inspections under contract to Ofsted. Local authorities are required to recover the full costs of those inspections through the contract prices that they agree with Ofsted.

  Learning Support Units
  Mr. Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what specialist training is to be given to teachers working in learning support units. [135482]

  Jacqui Smith
  Most teachers working in learning support units are experienced in classroom teaching and behaviour management. The amount of extra training they need will be determined by the school, drawing on other staff in the school or the local education authority's behaviour support service.

  Mr. Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what involvement the young people attending learning support units will have in their operation. [135484]

  Jacqui Smith
  Young people attending a unit should be consulted and involved in self-monitoring and in setting individual targets for improving their learning and behaviour. Young people should also be consulted about the rewards and sanctions to be imposed while in the unit.

  Mr. Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what criteria he will use to judge the effectiveness of individual learning support units. [135486]

  Jacqui Smith
  We have required each school with a learning support unit in Excellence in Cities areas to have performance indicators and to set targets over a three-year period. Performance indicators include:reduction in the number and frequency of incidents of poor behaviour or discipline in school for which a punishment is imposed;
  improved rates of attendance;
  improved educational achievement of pupils in the target group.

  We also hope that the availability of the units will reduce the need for exclusions in less severe cases.

  Mr. Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment who will be responsible for the management of learning support units. [135485]
  501W
  Jacqui Smith
  The day-to-day running of the learning support unit will be the responsibility of the full-time head of unit, but a member of the school's senior management team should have overall responsibility for the management of the unit.

  Mr. Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what the expected pupil:teacher ratio is in learning support units.[135488]

  Jacqui Smith
  Learning support units will be staffed with a full-time head of unit and appropriate support assistance, either full or part-time. There should be between six and not more than 10 pupils in the unit at any one time, either on a full or part-time basis.

  Connexions
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to ensure that the Connexions service will deliver(a) a universal and (b) a differentiated service.[135497]

  Mr. Wicks
  [holding answer 31 October 2000]The Connexions service will provide access for all teenagers to high quality information, advice and guidance about their options in learning and life, and personal support for those who need it. Every teenager is different, and the service can be tailored to individual need. The Secretary of State for Education and Employment announced, on 23 October, a substantial increase in the resources available to deliver the new service. By the end of 2002–03, the funding for the Connexions service will amount to £420 million, which will be £177 million more than the careers service currently receives.

  The Government have also issued business planning guidance to the new Connexions partnerships, inviting them to produce plans which identify the needs of all young people in their areas and how they propose to meet them. We will scrutinise these plans to ensure that they are offering a universal service as well as differentiating what is needed for those requiring additional and special help. The new resource and planning guidance will enable Connexions partnerships to deliver a service that meets the needs of all young people, including both those progressing well and those in need of extra help.

  Numbers of staff whose primary role is teaching in further education colleges, by mode England 1994–95 to 1997–98

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  Number of full-time staff whose primary role is teaching

  53,800

  52,400

  48,800

  48,300

  Number of part-time staff whose primary role is teaching

  77,000

  82,200

  82,100

  79,200

  Total number of staff whose primary role is teaching

  130,900

  134,700

  130,900

  127,500

  Special Educational Needs
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when he will publish the results of the consultation exercise on a new code of practice for special educational needs and announce his decision thereon. [135501]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 31 October 2000]Responses received to the recent consultation exercise on the draft revised special educational needs code of
  502W
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to ensure a common approach to the Connexions service(a) within his Department and (b) between his Department and other Departments. [135498]

  Mr. Wicks
  [holding answer 31 October 2000]The Connexions service will make a major contribution towards the DFEE' s objectives to increase participation and attainment in learning throughout the teenage years, thereby providing an effective foundation for lifelong learning. Co-ordinating mechanisms exist to ensure that all the Department's polices for teenagers are developed taking account of the role of the Connexions service. The Connexions service plays a major role in the Government's strategy for support for young people at risk. Coherence between initiatives and policies in this area is overseen by a cross-departmental ministerial group chaired by the Secretary of State for Education and Employment. Implementation of the Connexions service is steered by a group of senior officials from all key Departments who meet on a regular basis.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what quality assurance processes his Department will use to maximise the effectiveness of the Connexions programme. [135499]

  Mr. Wicks
  [holding answer 31 October 2000]The Department will ensure that Connexions partnerships deliver high quality and effective services by developing, in consultation with key stakeholders: an agreed set of comprehensive national quality delivery standards, a quality management framework which builds on the most appropriate features of established quality systems and, together with Ofsted, an inspection process which will assure that the standards are met. We will also be promoting the sharing of good practice between Connexions partnerships.

  Further Education Contracts
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many lecturers have been employed on regular contracts(a) full-time and (b) part-time in further education in each of the last 10 years. [135500]

  Mr. Wicks
  [holding answer 31 October 2000]Data are available only from 1994–95 to 1997–98 and are contained in the table.

  practice are intended to inform my Department in finalising the new code, and there is no intention to publish formally the results of consultation prior to seeking Parliament's approval to the final version of the new code for publication next spring. In accordance with the terms of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information, individual responses will however be available for inspection from my Department, other than those whose authors have specifically marked them as confidential, by anyone who requests to see them.
  503W
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what requirement exists for local education authorities to identify a named person on statements for pupils with special education needs. [135890]

  Jacqui Smith
  Paragraph 6(b) of Schedule 27 of the Education Act 1996 requires that where an LEA makes a statement of special educational needs they shall, when serving a copy of the statement on the parent of the child, give notice in writing to the parent of the name of the person to whom he may apply for information and advice about the child's special educational needs. Supplementary advice on the identification of the named person is given in the "Code of Practice on the Identification and Assessment of Special Educational Needs", which applies to England and Wales.

  Grammar School Ballots
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list recorded incidents of fraud and misleading information in respect of the conduct of grammar school ballots before 1 September. [135540]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  During the school year September 1999 to August 2000, officials investigated 38 complaints about grammar school petitions and ballots as follows: one in Barnet. one in Buckinghamshire, one in Birmingham, 10 in Kent, 14 in Ripon, four in Sutton and seven in Trafford. These included alleged cases of schools and local education authorities spending public funds to

  Maintained Secondary Schools, Selective and Non-Selective: number and percentage of pupils with statement of special educational needs, eligibility for free school meals and ethnicity—January 2000, by parliamentary constituency

  Selective Schools

  Number of pupils

  Percentage of pupils with statements

  Number of pupils known to be eligible for free school meals

  Percentage of pupils known to be eligible for free school meals

  Number of pupils from ethnic minorities

  Percentage of pupils from ethnic minorities

  Kent

  43

  0.1

  674

  2.4

  1,293

  4.5

  Buckinghamshire

  14

  0.1

  203

  1.4

  1,829

  13.8

  Lincolnshire

  26

  0.2

  222

  1.9

  347

  3

  Birmingham

  10

  0.2

  332

  5.1

  2,405

  36.7

  Trafford

  1—

  0.0

  318

  4.9

  627

  9.6

  Wirral

  9

  0.1

  328

  5.4

  116

  2.1

  Medway

  12

  0.2

  218

  3.7

  484

  9.9

  Gloucestershire

  11

  0.2

  112

  2.1

  335

  6.3

  Sutton

  1—

  0.1

  53

  1.2

  1,041

  23.7

  Bexley

  1—

  0.1

  161

  3.8

  423

  10.0

  Lancashire

  8

  0.2

  115

  3

  171

  5.8

  Southend-on-Sea

  1—

  0.1

  104

  2.8

  266

  7.3

  Slough

  7

  0.2

  178

  5.1

  1,792

  51.8

  Warwickshire

  1—

  0.1

  38

  1.2

  149

  5

  Essex

  1—

  0.0

  22

  0.7

  271

  9.2

  Torbay

  1—

  0.1

  124

  4.7

  42

  1.6

  Plymouth

  1—

  0.2

  99

  3.8

  68

  2.8

  Barnet

  1—

  0.0

  34

  1.4

  765

  34.1

  Bournemouth

  0

  0.0

  47

  2.3

  66

  3.2

  North Yorkshire

  0

  0.0

  30

  1.5

  58

  2.9

  Calderdale

  5

  0.3

  36

  1.9

  107

  5.6

  Kingston upon Thames

  0

  0.0

  19

  1

  665

  35.7

  Poole

  1—

  0.1

  45

  2.4

  44

  2.4

  Bromley

  1—

  0.1

  20

  1.2

  280

  16.5

  Redbridge

  1—

  0.1

  49

  2.9

  806

  48

  Wiltshire

  1—

  0.1

  8

  0.5

  20

  1.2

  Reading

  1—

  0.1

  5

  0.4

  207

  13.7

  Walsall

  0

  0.0

  37

  2.7

  364

  27

  Enfield

  1—

  0.1

  33

  2.5

  306

  26.8

  Kirklees

  0

  0.0

  23

  2.3

  79

  8.1

  Telford and Wrekin

  0

  0.0

  8

  0.9

  54

  5.6

  Liverpool

  0

  0.0

  63

  7.5

  72

  8.5

  504W
  influence the outcome of a petition or ballot and alleged breaches of the Ballot Information Code. Only two of these were fully or partially upheld. Both related to Trafford, one from each side of the debate.

  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many staff are working in his Department on grammar school ballots; and what has been the cost of this team in respect of(a) salaries and (b) non-staffing costs. [135542]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  Officials working on the grammar school ballots policy may also be deployed on other duties and it is not therefore possible to give the number or the cost as requested.

  Pupil Statistics
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many and what percentage of pupils are(a) eligible for free school meals, (b) statemented and (c) from ethnic minorities in (i) grammar schools and (ii) non-selective schools, in each local education authority with grammar schools. [135541]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The information requested is shown in the tables.

  General information on schools by local educational authority area has recently been published in a Statistical Volume "Statistics of Education—Schools in England 2000", a copy of which is available from the Library, or alternatively can be accessed on the Department's statistical website www.dfee.gov.uk/statistics.
  505W

  Maintained Secondary Schools, Selective and Non-Selective: number and percentage of pupils with statement of special educational needs, eligibility for free school meals ethnicity—January 2000, by parliamentary constituency

  Selective Schools

  Number of pupils

  Percentage of pupils with statements

  Number of pupils known to be eligible for free school meals

  Percentage of pupils known to be eligible for free school meals

  Number of pupils from ethnic minorities

  Percentage of pupils from ethnic minorities

  Cumbria

  1—

  0.1

  13

  1.7

  0

  0.0

  Devon

  1—

  0.3

  15

  2.1

  9

  1.2

  Wolverhampton

  0

  0.0

  18

  2.6

  136

  19.4

  Stoke-on-Trent

  0

  0.0

  6

  1.1

  27

  5.1

  England

  181

  0.1

  3,810

  2.7

  15,724

  11.4

  1Fewer than five pupils

  Non-Selective Schools

  Number of pupils

  Percentage of pupils with statements

  Number of pupils known to be eligible for free school meals

  Percentage of pupils known to be eligible for free school meals

  Number of pupils from ethnic minorities

  Percentage of pupils from ethnic minorities

  Kent

  2,256

  3.6

  8,915

  14.3

  1,924

  3.2

  Buckinghamshire

  544

  3.0

  2,190

  11.9

  4,469

  25.8

  Lincolnshire

  1,199

  3.9

  3,519

  11.3

  311

  1.0

  Birmingham

  1,111

  1.8

  22,261

  36.1

  25,774

  42.5

  Trafford

  212

  2.3

  2,627

  29.0

  1,039

  12.5

  Wirral

  534

  3.0

  6,101

  34.4

  203

  1.1

  Medway

  552

  4.1

  1,876

  13.8

  609

  4.7

  Gloucestershire

  817

  2.6

  2,808

  8.8

  894

  2.8

  Sutton

  248

  2.6

  1,125

  11.9

  730

  7.8

  Bexley

  310

  2.5

  2,000

  16.0

  1,220

  11.1

  Lancashire

  2,723

  3.9

  11,527

  16.4

  4,863

  7.0

  Southend-on-Sea

  110

  1.5

  1,455

  19.7

  269

  3.7

  Slough

  194

  4.6

  1,073

  25.5

  2,177

  53.1

  Warwickshire

  753

  2.6

  2,496

  8.6

  1,548

  5.4

  Essex

  1,311

  1.6

  8,803

  10.8

  1,687

  2.2

  Torbay

  166

  2.8

  1,161

  19.7

  58

  1.1

  Plymouth

  342

  2.1

  2,765

  17.2

  194

  1.4

  Barnet

  494

  2.7

  3,320

  18.0

  6,420

  37.8

  Bournemouth

  222

  2.9

  1,069

  14.0

  112

  2.1

  North Yorkshire

  880

  2.4

  2,671

  7.2

  360

  1.0

  Calderdale

  370

  2.9

  2,381

  18.7

  1,448

  11.8

  Kingston upon Thames

  151

  2.3

  795

  12.1

  1,142

  17.6

  Poole

  119

  1.9

  612

  9.9

  58

  1.0

  Bromley

  566

  3.0

  2,461

  13.1

  1,570

  10

  Redbridge

  232

  1.4

  3,000

  17.6

  8,166

  48.2

  Wiltshire

  547

  2.1

  1,804

  7.0

  358

  1.4

  Reading

  162

  3.3

  773

  15.9

  827

  17.0

  Walsall

  544

  2.8

  3,687

  18.7

  3,457

  17.5

  Enfield

  378

  2.0

  4,419

  23.6

  5,874

  32.5

  Kirklees

  1,073

  4.3

  4,821

  19.1

  4,877

  20.2

  Telford and Wrekin

  470

  5.2

  1,956

  21.5

  530

  6.2

  Liverpool

  581

  1.8

  12,288

  38.2

  1,714

  5.4

  Cumbria

  997

  3.1

  4,309

  13.3

  270

  0.9

  Devon

  1,262

  3.3

  3,694

  9.7

  294

  0.9

  Wolverhampton

  374

  2.4

  3,520

  22.5

  5,092

  32.6

  Stoke-on-Trent

  443

  3.2

  3,594

  25.7

  1,060

  7.6

  England

  79,607

  2.6

  519,820

  17.1

  347,943

  11.9

  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list for each local education authority in England the total number and percentage of out-borough children in secondary schools. [135751]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The information requested on out-borough children in secondary schools is not collected centrally.

  Information on pupils attending schools by local education authority area has recently been published in a statistical volume "Statistics of Education—Schools in England 2000" a copy of which is
  506W
  available from the Library, or alternatively can be accessed on the Department's statistical website www.dfee.gov.uk/statistics.

  Dudley Schools
  Mr. Pearson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many schools in(a) Dudley, South and (b) Dudley Metropolitan borough have extra teachers as a result of the Government's class size initiative. [135863]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The Government are well on track to deliver their infant class size pledge. £620 million is available to support the pledge, and allocations to Dudley
  507W
  LEA so far amount to some £1.75 million. This has enabled the authority to provide additional infant teachers in 24 schools in the borough, of which 10 are to schools in the Dudley, South constituency. It has also enabled the authority to reduce the number of pupils in infant classes of over 30 pupils in September 2000 to 96 (1.1 per cent.), from 739 (7.7 per cent.) in September 1999. The figure in January 1998 was 2,873 (27 per cent.).

  Mr. Pearson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many classroom assistants there are in(a) Dudley, South and (b) Dudley Metropolitan borough; and what the figure was in May 1997. [135864]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The available information is shown in the following table.

  The number of full-time educational support staff in maintained schools in Dudley, South parliamentary constituency has increased by 27 per cent. since January 1997. In Dudley local education authority area the equivalent percentage increase is 42 per cent. The Government will increase by 20,000 the number of full-time equivalent support staff working in primary and secondary schools in England by 2002.

  Information on educational support staff has recently been published in a statistical volume "Statistics of Education—Schools in England 2000" a copy of which is available from the Library, or alternatively can be accessed on the Department's statistical website www.dfee.gov.uk/statistics.

  Full-time equivalent numbers of educational support
  staff1 in maintained schools in the parliamentary constituency area of Dudley, South:
  1997–2000 Position as at January

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  Nursery

  5

  4

  4

  1

  Primary

  89

  97

  102

  124

  Secondary

  29

  31

  31

  31

  Special

  20

  24

  24

  27

  Pupil Referral units

  4

  4

  4

  5

  Total

  148

  160

  166

  188

  1Includes both full-time and the full-time equivalent of part-time non-teaching staff

  Full-time equivalent numbers of educational support staff1 in maintained school in the local education authority area of Dudley Metropolitan borough: 1997–2000 Position as at January

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  Nursery

  5

  4

  4

  1

  Primary

  303

  357

  382

  451

  Secondary

  113

  124

  127

  140

  Pupil Referral units

  4

  4

  4

  5

  Total

  479

  553

  589

  674

  1Includes both full-time and the full-time equivalent of part-time non-teaching staff

  Specialist Schools
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the moratorium on specialist schools in cases where local education authorities are projected to have reached 508W
  a level of 30 per cent. of pupils in such schools, with particular reference to its duration and conditions attached. [135924]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  We want as many pupils as possible to benefit from the network of technology, language, sports and arts colleges around the country and that is why we are expanding the programme to 1,000 schools by 2004. To ensure that all parts of the country, particularly where there are few specialist schools, get a fair distribution of specialist school resources, we do not at present want to receive further applications from schools in local education authorities where 30 per cent. or more of their pupils attend specialist schools. This is not a permanent measure. It will apply only until we achieve a fairer spread of specialist schools in other parts of the country and shall be reviewed after the spring 2001 specialist school competition. We have also said that we shall look sympathetically at exceptional circumstances where a school's application plans are already well advanced and where it has raised the required sponsorship. In two such cases, we have agreed to receive applications from Chenderit and Kingsbrook Schools in Northamptonshire. We will consider these applications in the same way as all other applications received against the published criteria, which include location factors such as distance to the nearest existing specialist school.

  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many specialist schools have been designated in each year since the inception of the scheme; and what has been the cost to public funds in each of those years. [135936]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The number of schools designated from each September since the specialist schools programme was introduced and the related cost in each of those years is given in the table:

  Year

  Number of designations

  Financial year

  Programme cost (£ million)

  1994

  49

  1994–95

  8

  1995

  58

  1995–96

  16

  1996

  74

  1996–97

  23

  1997

  78

  1997–98

  33

  1998

  85

  1998–99

  41

  1999

  77

  1999–2000

  47

  2000

  137

  2000–01

  176

  1Estimated outturn

  Whistleblowers
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what procedures exist in his Department for a civil servant to report actions which(a) are illegal, improper, or unethical, (b) are in breach of constitutional convention or a professional code, (c) may involve possible maladministration and (d) are otherwise inconsistent with the Civil Service Code. [136016]

  Mr. Wills
  DfEE whistleblowing procedures were launched in March 2000. Under these procedures staff are able to report suspected malpractice which breaches the Civil Service Code, legal or ethical standards, and threatens the interests or safety of others (such as staff and the public) and the DFEE itself. They provide a confidential internal channel for raising and dealing with malpractice and offer protection to staff who raise concerns in good faith.

PRIME MINISTER

  Single Currency
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Prime Minister what the wording of the question in any future referendum on the United Kingdom joining the single European currency will be. [133678]

  The Prime Minister
  The determining factor underpinning any Government decision on membership of the single currency is whether the economic case for the UK joining is clear and unambiguous. Because of the magnitude of the decision, the Government believe that, whenever a decision is taken by Government, it should be put to a referendum of the British people. The question asked in any referendum will need to be considered as part of the legislation providing for the referendum to be held.

  Mr. Bradshaw
  To ask the Prime Minister which part of Government is responsible for assessing whether membership of the single European currency would be in Britain's overall economic interest. [135858]

  The Prime Minister
  The Treasury will make another assessment of the five economic tests early in the next Parliament.

  Wimbledon
  Mr. Casale
  To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has to visit Wimbledon. [133681]

  The Prime Minister
  I have no immediate plans to do so.

  Definition of Superpower and Superstate
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Prime Minister what his definition is of(a) a superpower and (b) a superstate, including the (i) differences between them and (ii) their common features. [135009]

  The Prime Minister
  I said in my speech in Warsaw on 6 October:The European Union is the world's biggest single economic and political partnership of democratic states. That represents a huge opportunity for Europe and the peoples of Europe. And as a Union of democracies, it has the capacity to sustain peace in our continent, to deliver unprecedented prosperity and to be a powerful force for democratic values in the rest of the world.

  I also said:
  We want a Europe where there are national differences, not national barriers, where we hold many of our policies in common, but keep our distinct, separate identities.

  That is what I mean by creating a superpower not a superstate.

  Kyoto Mechanisms Office
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the planned level of funding and personnel for the Kyoto Mechanisms Office. [135446]

  The Prime Minister
  The Government have not yet decided exactly what resources will be needed. This will depend, in part, on how quickly international projects get under way. This will be influenced by the meeting of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (in 510W
  The Hague in November), which will develop the rules for the Kyoto mechanisms. A final decision will be taken after this meeting.

  Waste Resource Action Programme
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on progress made by the new Waste Resource Action Programme. [135430]

  The Prime Minister
  Significant progress has been made in establishing Waste Resource Action Programme (WRAP) as an independent body with around £30 million of Government funding over the first three years, covering England, Scotland and Wales. Vic Cocker CBE, formerly chief executive of Severn Trent Group plc, is already in place as its chairman. The new chief executive will be Jennie Price, formerly chief executive at the Construction Confederation.

  WRAP will be launched formally on 15 November, when its initial priorities and overall objectives for tackling barriers to increased recycling will be published.

  Lord Levy
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the visits, and dates of those visits, undertaken by Lord Levy in his capacity as his private envoy since 1 January. [135417]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 30 October 2000]I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 6 April 2000,Official Report, column 574W. Since then, Lord Levy has made the following visits in his capacity as the Prime Minister's personal envoy:

  Israel: 7 August

  Palestinian Authority: 8–9 August, 8 October

  Syria: 2 May

  Jordan: 1 May, 8 August

  Egypt: 3 May, 5–6 June, 9–11 August

  Switzerland: 29 May (meeting with Amir of Bahrain).

  Intelligence and Security Committee (Annual Report)
  Mrs. Golding
  To ask the Prime Minister when he plans to lay the Intelligence and Security Committee's Annual report before Parliament. [136515]

  The Prime Minister
  I am grateful to the Intelligence and Security Committee for their valuable work and their latest annual report. Following consultation with them over matters which could not be published without prejudicing the discharge of the function and operation of the intelligence and security agencies, I intend to lay the report before Parliament on 2 November. Copies of the report will also be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  The Government will respond formally to the report in due course.

  Iraq
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister what is Her Majesty's Government's latest assessment of the effectiveness of UN sanctions against Iraq; with particular reference to the impact of sanctions on the children of Iraq. [133748]
  511W
  The Prime Minister
  We believe that the sanctions regime has effectively contained Saddam Hussein in the last 10 years. During this time he has not attacked his neighbours, nor used chemical weapons against his own people.

  We share concerns that the children of Iraq have suffered greatly, as have all Iraqis, at the hands of a ruthless dictator who cares nothing for their welfare. Unlike Saddam Hussein we are concerned at their plight. SCR1284—a UK initiative—has expanded the oil for food programme. This year alone it will provide more than $16 billion for the Iraqi people. In the face of this oil wealth, there is no reason for the people of Iraq to go short of food and medicine other than Saddam's own decision to deny them humanitarian relief.

  Social Inclusion
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Prime Minister what analysis he has commissioned of the effect of the gap between rich and poor on social inclusion. [133662]

  The Prime Minister
  The Government have taken forward a substantial amount of analysis in this area. The Social Exclusion Unit has, in particular, examined a wide range of research evidence in its work on specific topics such as deprived neighbourhoods and teenage pregnancy. The unit is currently leading work to develop a national strategy for neighbourhood renewal. The strategy will aim to arrest the wholesale decline of our most deprived neighbourhoods, to reverse it, and to prevent it from recurring. We expect to publish an action plan later in the autumn, which will set out how we plan to implement the strategy and which includes analysis of the problems in this area.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Sickness Absence
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make a statement on the progress made by the Lord Chancellor's Department since 1999 in reducing sickness absence; what targets he has agreed with the Cabinet Office; and if he will make a statement. [135466]

  Mr. Lock
  The Lord Chancellor's Department and its agencies, the Court Service and the public Trust Office, together with the Public Record Office, HM Land Registry and the Northern Ireland Court Service have each adopted the principles set out in the "Working Well Together" report, issued by the Cabinet Office in 1998, for managing attendance in the public sector.

  As a result, a range of new measures has been introduced with the aim of reducing sick absence levels in line with targets set for 2001 and 2003 and consolidating reductions already achieved. New arrangements include; enhanced local monitoring procedures to capture and interrogate sick absence figures, strategies for dealing with long-term sick absences, the appointment of new occupational health providers, health screening programmes, awareness-raising sessions, and detailed guidance.
  512W
  The Cabinet Office prepares, each year, an annual report of sickness absence in the civil service, which includes information for each Department. The report for 1999 is currently being finalised and will be published shortly.

  Details of the Department's targets for reduced sickness absence for the years 2001 and 2003 against a baseline year of 1998 will be included in its service delivery agreement. This is also to be published shortly.

  Whistleblowers
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what procedures exist in the Lord Chancellor's Department for a civil servant to report actions which(a) are illegal, improper, or unethical, (b) are in breach of constitutional convention or a professional code, (c) may involve possible maladministration and (d) are otherwise inconsistent with the Civil Service Code. [135453]

  Mr. Lock
  The Lord Chancellor's Department, its agencies, the Court Service and the Public Trust Office, and its sister Departments, the Northern Ireland Court Service, the Public Record Office and the Land Registry each have, or are currently developing, specific procedures for reporting all matters of the nature referred to, in accordance with the requirements of the Civil Service Code.

  The procedures within the Lord Chancellor's Department Headquarters, the Court Service Agency and Land Registry provide for staff to address their concerns to a more senior manager, or if this is inappropriate, to a specific named official who will investigate the matter. If staff remain dissatisfied they are advised to report the matter to the Civil Service Commissioners.

  The Public Trust Office and the Public Record Office both have existing internal grievance procedures which staff can use if necessary to report the kind of problems covered by the question.

  The Northern Ireland Court Service also has an existing internal grievance procedure. However, in response to the Public Interest Disclosure (NI) Order 1998, a suitable policy for dealing specifically with the type of concerns raised in the question is being drafted. It is intended that this policy will be operational by the end of this year.

  Visitor's Entry Certificate
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if she will make a statement on the introduction of charges to exercise the right of appeal against a refusal of a visitor's entry certificate; what representations he has received about the charges; and if he will list the charges made for other statutory rights of appeal. [135698]

  Jane Kennedy
  To be of use family visit appeals must be processed swiftly because such visits are often for an important event like a wedding. Providing a priority service is expensive and it is important that visit visa appeals pay for themselves to avoid adverse impact on other high priority areas.

  We have received 22 representations from Members of Parliament and one from a Member of the House of Lords expressing concern about the charges for these appeals. In

  513W
  addition there have been six representations from local Racial Equality Councils and four from other voluntary organisations.

  Charges are also payable where there is a statutory right of appeal to the Supreme court, county court and in family proceedings. Details of these fees are set out in the Supreme court, county courts, and Family Proceedings Fees Orders 1999, and subsequent amending orders, respectively. In addition there are charges for applications and hearings at the Lands Tribunal and the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal. These fees are set out in the Lands Tribunal (Fees) Rules 1996 and the Leasehold Valuation Tribunals (Fees) Order 1997 respectively.

  Small Claims (Court Fees)
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what assessment he has made of the increase in court fees for small claims cases since April 1999. [135670]

  Mr. Lock
  Issue fees were increased across the board for all litigants issuing money claims on 25 April 2000. The increases varied according to the value of the claim. Since 25 April 2000 a litigant claiming £1,000 or less has paid between £7 and £10 more to issue the claim through the county courts, depending on the size of the claim but, where that claim has been defended, has no longer had to pay the £80 fee payable on the filing of an Allocation Questionnaire. Litigants issuing claims between £1,000 and £5,000 in the county courts, the upper value limit for assigning defended claims to the small claims track, have paid £80 to issue the claim instead of £70, a £10 increase. The Government continue to believe that it is reasonable to expect parties to pay the full cost of the civil justice system they are using to resolve their dispute and to make economic decisions about whether or not to pursue a claim through the courts. Less well-off litigants are protected by exemption and remission provisions.

TREASURY

  Correspondence
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton, will receive a reply to his letters to the Chief Secretary to the Treasury dated 18 May, 29 June and 2 August. [136090]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  I have already done so.

  Ministerial Directions
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 23 October 2000,Official Report, column 74W, if he will place supporting documentation and information on ministerial directions since 1990 in the Library; if he will publish the text of each justification given by the Minister for each of these directions; and if he will make a statement. [135451]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  This information is not held centrally.

  Compliance Costs
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what progress has been made in the last three months in researching the impact of compliance costs of major taxes and duties. [135874]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Following an advert in the Official Journal of the European Community on 26 May 2000, two contracts were awarded in September 2000 to undertake the first studies in this research programme.

  "Our Stake in Our Future"
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will place the representations he has received on the consultation document "Our Stake in Our Future" in the Library; and if he will make a statement on progress in the consultation. [135892]

  Mr. Timms
  I am currently considering this matter in the light of the 30 written responses to the consultation document.

  European Investment Bank
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state the name and qualifications of the representative of the United Kingdom on the Board of the European Investment Bank and the United Kingdom institutions or persons to which he is responsible; what part(a) that person and (b) Her Majesty's Government plays in the nomination and appointment of the (i) president and (ii) vice-president of that bank; what changes have (A) occurred and (B) are about to occur in that office; and what representations he has received concerning the filling of such vacancies. [134181]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The governing bodies of the European Investment Bank consist of the Board of Governors, Board of Directors and Management Committee, as set out in the Bank's Statute (a Protocol to the EC Treaty). The United Kingdom representative on the Board of Governors is the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The UK members of the Board of Directors are listed in the EIB's Annual Report, a copy of which is in the Library. The UK members are nominated by the Chancellor and appointed by the Board of Governors.

  The resident Management Committee of the Bank comprises the President and seven Vice-Presidents. Appointments are made by the Board of Governors on a proposal from the Board of Directors. In order to ensure a balance of Vice-Presidents from different member states the Board of Directors considers for appointment a candidate nominated by the Governor of a particular member state. The candidate nominated is a matter for the Governor concerned.

  There have recently been two appointments to Vice-Presidency posts.

  IR35
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the impact of IR35 on the Government's efforts(a) to encourage more skilled IT workers into the country and (b) to tackle social exclusion. [135559]
  515W
  Dawn Primarolo
  The IR35 legislation was necessary to ensure fair taxation of everyone who meets the accepted definition of an employee, whether or not they choose to use a personal service company.

  ISAs
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he will complete the operational review of ISAs. [135902]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Contributions to the review are being considered and an announcement of the outcome will be made shortly.

  Rollover Relief
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he will publish draft clauses relating to rollover relief of substantial shareholdings. [135894]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  As was stated in the technical note "Corporation Tax: Chargeable Gains: Deferral Relief for Substantial Shareholdings" published by the Inland Revenue on 23 June 2000, our intention is to publish the draft clauses at the time of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor's pre-Budget Report. This will be on 8 November 2000.

  COM (2000)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on his policy towards measures outlined in COM (2000) 507; and what changes to UK(a) practice and (b) law are supported by the Government. [135554]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Government will submit an Explanatory Memorandum on the proposal and a Regulatory Impact Assessment in the normal way.
  516W

  Income Tax
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 28 July 2000,Official Report, column 1011W, concerning taxation of incomes exceeding £100,000 a year (a) what assumptions underlay his estimate of an increase of £200 million per annum for subsequent years and (b) when he will next be able to update the information in his answer. [136019]

  Dawn Primarolo
  As stated in the previous reply, the estimates were based on the Survey of Personal Incomes and are consistent with the economic assumptions at the time of the March 2000 Budget, as published in the "Economic and Fiscal Strategy Report and Financial Statement and Budget Report".

  Working Families Tax Credit
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many families are benefiting from the working families tax credit in the Bury, North constituency. [135914]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 31 October 2000]Estimates of the number of families in each parliamentary constituency in receipt of the Working Families-Tax Credit (WFTC) at the end of May, based on five per cent. sample awards, are shown at Table 9.4 in the WFTC Quarterly Enquiry for May 2000. A copy has been placed in the Library.

  Tax Relief (Sports Clubs)
  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received about tax relief and tax exemptions for community and amateur sports clubs; and if he will make a statement. [135646]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew), on 31 October 2000,Official Report, columns 414–15W.

  Tour Operator's Margin Scheme
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he expects to complete the review of the Tour Operator's Margin Scheme. [135875]

  Dawn Primarolo
  There are currently three cases concerning the application of the Tour Operators' Margin Scheme (TOMS) which are waiting to be considered by the VAT & Duties Tribunal or the Court of Appeal. It is therefore appropriate to await the outcome of these cases before deciding upon any substantive changes to the way in which the TOMS is applied.

  Online Transactions
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the Government's policy on the application of VAT and other taxes to online transactions. [135558]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Government's views on taxation and electronic commerce were set out in "Electronic Commerce: The UK's Taxation Agenda" published by the Inland Revenue and HM Customs and Excise in November 1999. Copies were placed in the Library at the time of publication.

  Self-assessment
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he will conclude his review of the self-assessment inquiry procedures; and if he will make a statement. [135900]

  Dawn Primarolo
  A research study into Income Tax Self-Assessment inquiries has been carried out jointly by the Inland Revenue and the Chartered Institute of Taxation. The results will be published in due course.

  Home Care
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he will announce the result of the review of the consultation on the liability for supply of home care by commercial supplies. [135891]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Following Customs' discussions with the home care sector, details of the proposed Extra Statutory Concession on the VAT liability of home care will be available when the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry lays before Parliament revised regulations governing the conduct of the private recruitment industry.

  National Insurance Fund
  Mr. John M. Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the balance is of the National Insurance Fund; and what it was 12 months ago. [135115]
  517W
  Dawn Primarolo
  I refer the hon. Member to the report by the Government Actuary on the drafts of the Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order 2000 and the Social Security (Contributions) (Re-rating and National Insurance Funds Payments) Order 2000 (Cm 4587).

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Animal Experiments
  Mrs. Gordon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will review the arrangements for requiring establishments designated under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 to have an ethical review process. [136224]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I have asked the Home Office Animals (Scientific Procedures) Inspectorate to carry out a review of the operation of the ethical review process, to see what improvements can be made in the way in which local reviews are carried out to enhance animal welfare. The terms of reference of the review are as follows:To review the efficiency and effectiveness of the operation of the Ethical Review Process, as set out in PCD Circular 3–4.98 issued on 1 April 1998, and in particular to consider:

  (a) whether the aims of the process, as specified in paragraph 3 of the Annex to the Circular, have been achieved;

  (b) what problems may have been encountered; and

  (c) what the resource implications have been

  and to recommend any changes in the arrangements and to identify best practice.

  The review will take account of the views of all the stakeholders in the process, including certificate holders and licensees under the 1986 and animal welfare organisations. The Inspectorate have been asked to report by the middle of 2001.

  Mrs. Gordon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consideration he has given to incorporating an independent element in future investigations by the Animal (Scientific Procedures) Inspectorate of allegations against establishments and individuals licensed under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. [136225]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I have considered the introduction of an independent element into future investigations under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986.

  I have concluded that the appointment of a small independent scrutiny team, drawn from the Animal Procedures Committee, and reporting directly to the Secretary of State would be the best and most practicable means of providing assurance that any future Inspectorate investigations have been carried out with the necessary objectivity and thoroughness. I am grateful to the Committee for agreeing to undertake this role following an approach to them in June 2000.

  Regulation Tribunal
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what arrangements have been made for the appointment of members of the tribunal to be set up under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000; and if he will make a statement. [136380]
  518W
  Mr. Straw
  On 2 October, Her Majesty the Queen appointed eight members to the new Investigatory Powers Tribunal by Letters Patent for a period of five years. Lord Justice Mummery has been appointed as President of the Tribunal and Sir Michael Burton as Vice-President. The remaining six members of the Tribunal are Sheriff Principal John Colin McInnes QC, Sir David Calcutt QC, Sir Richard Gaskell, Mr. Robert Seabrook QC, Mr. Peter Scott QC and Mr. William Carmichael.

  Drugs (Confiscation of Profits)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to the oral answer of 14 June 2000,Official Report, column 924, if he will make a statement on the measures taken to date to implement recommendations contained in the Performance and Innovation Unit report on recovering the proceeds of crime in respect of confiscation of the profits accruing from drug-related crime. [133749]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  When the Prime Minister announced the publication of the PIU' s Report "Recovering the Proceeds of Crime" on 14 June, he said that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, in collaboration with my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, would take forward implementation of the conclusions of the Report and introduce legislation as soon as possible.

  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary announced to the House on 19 July 2000, Official Report, column 379, that £54 million had been allocated over the three-year Spending Review period to fund the new National Confiscation Agency.
  Legislation to establish the agency and implement other measures proposed in the Report is being prepared and will be brought forward as soon as parliamentary time allows.

  In order to inform this work and ensure that no excessive burden will be placed on business we prepared a draft Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA) and sent it to a range of organisations, with a request for comments by 31 October. We will make the completed RIA available to the House in due course.

  Senator Pinochet
  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 27 July 2000, if he will explain the reasons underlying his decision not to classify the period of residence of Senator Pinochet in Surrey as an unforeseen burden on Surrey Police, committing them to exceptional additional expenditure and as being an event of international dimension, arising as a consequence of a decision by the Government. [133958]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The total additional costs for protecting Senator Pinochet were estimated at £750,000, which was around 0.8 per cent. of the budget of the Surrey police in 1999–2000. Once account is taken of the special payment of –200,000 made in March 1999 the proportion of the additional costs that fell on the Surrey police was reduced to 0.6 per cent. of the force's 1999–2000 budget.
  519W
  When the special payment was made in March 1999, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary indicated to the Chief Constable that it was unlikely that he would be able to give Surrey police a further special payment for the additional costs incurred during 1999–2000.

  Consideration of the Police Authority's further request for a special grant in March suggested that Surrey police had been able to accommodate the extra costs without a reduction in the level of service provided by the force. During 1999–2000, police numbers in Surrey increased by 123 to 1,785, the highest they have ever been. In view of such favourable indicators it was decided that a further special payment was not justified.

  Com (2000) 495
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will make a statement on his policy towards the establishment of a European registry of sentences passed on criminals and procedures pending, as set out in Corn (2000) 495; [134679]

  (2) if he will make a statement on his policy towards including (a) Eurojust and (b) the ECJ in the process of determining claims of jurisdiction between member states in multiple cross-border crimes, as set out in para 13.1 of Com (2000) 495; [134799]

  (3) if he will list those proposals on page 22 of Corn (2000) 495 which it is his policy to (a) support and (b) oppose; and if he will make a statement. [134800]

  Mrs. Roche
  I refer the hon. Member to the Explanatory Memorandum on Corn (2000) 495, the Commission's Communication on the mutual recognition of final decisions in criminal matters, which was deposited in the House of Commons Library on 12 October 2000. The Government broadly support the proposals in the Communication.

  In the Explanatory Memorandum on Corn (2000) 495, the Government indicated that improvements in the arrangements for requesting information on existing criminal records should be given priority over creating a European Criminal Registry. The practical benefits of the proposed European Criminal Registry should be carefully assessed in view of the possibility of high costs and data protection considerations.

  As regards the determination of claims of jurisdiction, and the roles that Eurojust and the European Court of Justice might have, the Government consider that it would be appropriate to wait until Eurojust has developed relevant experience before developing criteria for ranking such claims.

  The Government consider that the discussions in Corn (2000) 495 on ne bis in idem are sensible; the suggestion that prosecutions are co-ordinated needs careful consideration, but no proposal has yet been tabled to address this issue.

  For further information on the subject of mutual recognition, I refer the hon. Member to the Explanatory Memorandum on the Programme of Measures to implement the principle of mutual recognition.

  Police (Administration)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he will take to reduce the burden of administration on the police. [134453]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  We are committed to looking at ways to reduce unnecessary administrative burdens on the police, consistent with the interests of justice. It is important to recognise that many procedures, which may be time-consuming, are nevertheless necessary to protect both the accused person and the officers who deal with him or her. Some paperwork is a necessary part of the job.

  The Home Office has a significant role in setting the administrative framework for policing and we will continue to collaborate with forces to reduce bureaucratic burdens whenever possible. A current review of the Codes of Practice which govern police procedures under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 should provide an opportunity for us to make further progress.

  National guidance on the preparation of prosecution files by the police is set out in the "Manual of Guidance for the Preparation, Processing and Submission of Files". Case files completed in line with the guidance in that document will, in many cases, require only five or six forms. The Manual is issued to all forces and has just been updated for re-issue in November. The Cabinet Office Public Sector Team's Regulatory Impact Unit aims to identify ways of reducing bureaucracy, and police paperwork was the first area it studied. A member of the Unit sits on the Editorial Board of the Manual of Guidance.

  When the Narey measures for speeding up the progress of cases through the criminal justice system were piloted in 1998–99, 54 per cent. of cases resulted in a guilty plea at first hearing and only required an expedited file. These measures were introduced nationally on 1 November 1999 and have been shown to have reduced paperwork significantly.

  Forces themselves also have a role to play. A thematic report by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC) in 1997 found that in many forces additional forms were being added to those required by the existing Manual. HMIC recommended that all forces should review their use of non-Manual of Guidance forms to reduce the number that officers have to complete.

  Another area in which significant improvements are possible is in the development of new information systems. The National Strategy for Police Information Systems (NSPIS) provides for the development of a range of standard, linked applications covering the main policing functions. The progressive implementation of these applications in forces will eliminate many of the current inefficiencies, such as officers having to key in the same information several times.

  Further, under the initiative for integrating business and information systems in the criminal justice system ("IBIS"), detailed plans have been drawn up to ensure that the information systems which are being developed in all the criminal justice organisations have the necessary links installed for the efficient sharing and exchange of information throughout the criminal justice process.

  Police Response Vehicles
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many police response vehicles have been involved in accidents in each London borough while attending to immediate response calls in the past year; [134312]

  (2) what percentage of immediate response calls were met within the target time for the Metropolitan police in each borough in the most recent year for which figures are available. [134313]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Details are set out in the table. The information has been provided by the Metropolitan police service, and relates to the period between September 1999 and August 2000.

  London borough

  Police response vehicles involved in accidents while attending to immediate
  response calls (actual numbers)

  Immediate response calls within the target time(%)

  City of Westminster

  55

  86

  Kensington and Chelsea

  28

  85

  Camden

  42

  74

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  35

  89

  Hackney

  69

  82

  Tower Hamlets

  44

  78

  Heathrow

  0

  90

  Waltham Forest

  35

  76

  Redbridge

  44

  77

  Havering

  26

  75

  Newham

  58

  70

  Barking and Dagenham

  29

  83

  Lambeth

  49

  80

  Southwark

  54

  84

  Islington

  47

  75

  Lewisham

  40

  83

  Bromley

  29

  78

  Harrow

  22

  77

  Brent

  36

  74

  Greenwich

  30

  76

  Bexley

  18

  86

  Barnet

  36

  75

  Richmond-upon-Thames

  18

  86

  Hounslow

  48

  82

  Kingston-upon-Thames

  14

  85

  Merton

  19

  83

  Wandsworth

  46

  84

  Ealing

  33

  79

  Hillingdon

  32

  77

  Enfield

  57

  78

  Haringey

  27

  72

  Croydon

  32

  81

  Sutton

  19

  86

  Metropolitan police service

  1,411

  79

  Schengen Agreement
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in which diplomatic missions of Her Majesty's Government are responsible for the issue of visas to nationals of Schengen countries. [134808]

  Mr. Vaz
  I have been asked to reply.

  None. Nationals of Schengen countries, as EU citizens, do not require visas to visit the UK.

CABINET OFFICE

  Drug Abuse
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office when she last met the drugs co-ordinator to discuss drug abuse. [133643]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  I met Keith Hellawell, the UK Anti-Drugs Co-ordinator, on 17 October to discuss a wide range of drug issues in pursuance of the Government's anti-drugs strategy.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what plans she has to tackle the use of illegal drugs in rural areas. [133644]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  Drug Action Teams are the main mechanism for delivery of the anti-drugs strategy on the ground, whether in rural areas or in inner cities. All Drug Action Teams are required to plan and deliver an effective programme of activities for drugs in line with the National Strategy. Drug Action Teams identify gaps in their provision and seek to address this. Hertfordshire DAT has been highlighted as high-performing: with programmes in all LEA schools; on drug awareness in the workplace; and to reduce the availability of drugs in prisons.

  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if she will make a statement on the progress of the drug action teams. [133646]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  The effectiveness of drug action teams (DATs) is measured by an annual planning and reporting process based on plans and reports submitted by each DAT. The analysis of this year's plans and their reports for the financial year 1999–2000 has recently been completed. A summary is due for publication later this month in the co-ordinator's annual report.

  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what priority she will give to treatment as part of the anti-drugs strategy. [133656]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  It is a key aim of the Government's anti-drugs strategy to enable people with drug problems to overcome them and live healthy and crime-free lives. It is for this reason that the recent spending review will see an increase in the annual spend on treatment services, including within prisons, to over £400 million by 2003–04.

  GM Foods
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if she will make a statement on the current Government policy on genetically modified foods. [133645]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  Our policy is to ensure that the regulation of GM technology protects human health, the environment and consumer choice. We established the Food Standards Agency to provide independent assessment of the safety of all foods, including GM. We support safe assessment of the potential benefits of the technology.

  Public Bodies
  Tony Wright
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what proposals she has to amend the system of appointment to public bodies. [133648]
  523W
  Mr. Stringer
  My right hon. Friend has no immediate plans to change the system of public appointments.

  EU (Departmental Policy)
  Mr. Wilkinson
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office when she last met her Cabinet counterparts to agree the co-ordination of departmental policy towards the EU. [133649]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  Ministers regularly discuss the co-ordination of EU business.

  Electronic Government
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if she will make a statement on Britain's progress in developing electronic Government. [133650]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  The Government continue to make strong progress towards the Prime Minister's target that by 2005 all Government services should be available online.

  We have a good story to tell: for central Government we have identified 451 services to the citizen and to business, and already one third of them are available online.

  Things you can do online now include:

  ordering and paying for a company's financial returns;

  checking to see if you need hospital treatment;

  find out if it is safe to visit foreign countries;

  fill out a tax form;

  the public can also keep up to date with what is happening in Parliament and contact the Ombudsman online;

  employees and employers can interactively calculate pay rates and entitlements under the national minimum wage regulations with further interactive guides to employment law to follow.

  Compared to other countries the figure is high, as is the volume and quality of the material available on the web.

  Much more detail about Government service than I can give here may be found in the reports monitoring progress towards the targets for electronic service. These include details of the innovative approaches that Departments have planned for future services.

  The spring 2000 report has been placed in the Libraries of the House. My Department is preparing the autumn 2000 monitoring report which I will also be placing in the Libraries of the House.

  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what progress has been made in the development of the Government secure intranet. [133657]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  The Government Secure Intranet (GSI) continues to make steady progress.

  Seventy-one organisations are now connected and some 90,000 staff have e-mail access.

  The GSI has met its original objectives of providing a secure e-mail service for Government and of achieving a step change in the number of civil servants with internet access.

  For example, a secure e-mail gateway has been developed between the GSI and the new Police National Network Extranet and is already being used for
  524W
  collaborative policy drafting work between the DTI and DCMS sharing an intranet site for developing the Communications White Paper.

  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if she will make a statement on progress in introducing the electronic delivery of Government services. [133666]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  The Government continue to make strong progress towards the Prime Minister's target that by 2005 all government services should be available on-line.

  We have a good story to tell; for central Government we have identified 451 services to the citizen and to business and already one third of them are available on-line.

  Things that can be done on-line now include:

  ordering and paying for a company's financial returns;

  checking to see if you need hospital treatment;

  find out if it is safe to visit foreign countries;

  fill out a tax form;

  the public can also keep up to date with what is happening in Parliament and contact the Ombudsman on-line;

  employees and employers can interactively calculate pay rates and entitlements under the national minimum wage regulations with further interactive guides to employment law to follow.

  A comparison with other countries also shows that we are doing well, as the recent international benchmarking study showed. For example, although currently the number of two-way dealings that can be done on-line is low, at about 20 (but rising) compared to other countries the figure is high, as is the volume and quality of the material available on the web.

  Manufacturing (Regulations)
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if she will calculate the number of regulations imposed on manufacturing businesses since May 1997. [133651]

  Mr. Stringer
  This information is not kept in the form requested and could be obtained only at disproportionate expense.

  Since August 1998, every regulation likely to have an impact on businesses, charities or voluntary organisations has been subject to a thorough assessment procedure. These regulatory impact assessments are placed in the Libraries of the House. The particular business sectors upon which each regulation impacts are not recorded separately.

  Drug Trafficking
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what action the UK Government are taking to tackle international trafficking in drugs. [133652]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  The Government are working in close partnership with the enforcement and intelligence agencies to tackle international trafficking of all drugs, particularly Class A drugs which pose the greatest threat. Overseas activity is concentrated on the key source and transit countries to disrupt the movement of drugs to
  525W
  Europe and the UK. In this country, every effort is being made to tackle the organised criminal enterprises involved in illicit drug trafficking.

  Rural Affairs Committee
  Charlotte Atkins
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if she will make a statement on the work of the Rural Affairs Committee. [133653]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  The Ministerial Group on Rural Affairs co-ordinates Government policy on rural issues. Recently, it has been working on the Rural White Paper.

  Focus 5000
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what assessment she has made of the effectiveness of the Focus 5000 group in helping shape Government policy. [133654]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  I take it that my hon. Friend is referring to the People's Panel. An independent interim evaluation of the Panel was published and referred to on 23 May 2000,Official Report, column 451W. Copies were placed in the Library. The evaluation report concluded that the Panel was a "valuable asset" and had
  proved its worth as a vehicle to promote greater understanding, within local and national government, of public views, and of the need to obtain these views.

  A full evaluation of the effectiveness of the Panel in helping shape Government policy will be carried out early in 2001.

  Leak Inquiries
  Mr. Ruffley
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office how many leak inquiries have been commissioned by Departments in the last 12 months. [133655]

  Mr. Stringer
  Since 1 October 1999, the Cabinet Office has been notified of 19 leak investigations commissioned by Government Departments.

  Quangos
  Jane Griffiths
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what steps she is taking to ensure diversity in appointments to quangos. [133660]

  Mr. Stringer
  The Government are keen to ensure that those serving on the boards of public bodies are as representative of society as possible. It is committed to the equal representation of women and men in public appointments and a pro-rata representation of members of the ethnic minorities. Is also wants to encourage more disabled people to participate in public life.

  The Public Appointments Unit in the Cabinet Office produces annually the Government's overall action plan in relation to equal opportunities in public appointments. The publication also includes departments individual action plans specific to their own bodies. "Quangos: Opening up Public Appointments 2000–2003" was published on 24 May 2000 and provides details of what steps are being taken to increase diversity in public appointments.

  Better Regulation Task Force
  Mr. Fallon
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office how many recommendations of the better regulation task force have so far been implemented; and how many remain outstanding. [133661]

  Mr. Stringer
  The independent better regulation task force has, since its inception in 1997, produced 14 substantive reviews which have made a total of 264 recommendations. Of the 250 the Government have so far responded to, 204 have been accepted in full, 11 accepted in principle and eight accepted in part. The Government are considering a further 21 recommendations. We have not accepted six of the Task Force's recommendations.

  The recommendations are a variety of types: some involving primary legislation; others about changing the practices of those in the regulatory and enforcement environments; and others applying to all areas of Government activity, for example on the quality of guidance. For this reason it is not possible to quantify how many have been implemented.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if she will make a statement on the work of the better regulation task force. [133665]

  Mr. Stringer
  The independent better regulation task force has recently published its third annual report (available in the Library of the House) which sets out its achievements over the last three years and indicates its likely work programme for the coming year.

  Press Officers
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if she will make a statement on the role of departmental press officers. [133663]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  The role of departmental press officers, as outlined in the guidance on the work of the GIS, is to ensure that Government policy and actions are explained and presented in a positive light and that the best possible opportunity is taken to convey its messages to the public through the media. The work of departmental press officers is explained in more detail in the guidance on the work of the GIS and the GICS handbook, copies of both are available in the Library.

  "All Our Futures"
  Ms Perham
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if she will make a statement on progress in implementing the recommendations of the report of the better government for older people programme entitled "All Our Futures". [133664]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  We are considering our response to the recommendations and how they can best be implemented. This involves discussions with other Government Departments, the Local Government Association and the Better Government for Older People Steering Group. Good progress is being made and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security will respond in due course.

  Better Government Programme
  Mr. Quinn
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if she will make a statement on the delivery of the better government programme in Yorkshire and Humberside. [133647]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  The Government Office for Yorkshire and the Humber is working with other stakeholders to modernise services across the region and I am pleased to say that excellent progress is being made.

  Two examples from the region are cited in "Citizens First", the Modernising Government Annual Report: the Inland Revenue's translation service, which is being piloted with 128 languages in South Yorkshire; and the introduction of videolink kiosks in East Yorkshire which makes it easier to access local services such as police, law centres, NHS Direct, council departments or the Benefits Agency.

  Much more detail about Government service than I can give here may be found in the reports monitoring progress towards the targets for electronic service. These include details of the innovative approaches that Departments have planned for future services.
  528W
  The spring 2000 report has been placed in the Libraries of the House. My Department is preparing the autumn 2000 monitoring report which I will also be placing in the Libraries of the House.

  New Regulations
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office in what form monthly statistics on departmental returns concerning new regulations are available. [135992]

  Mr. Stringer
  The lists of monthly returns by Departments of regulatory proposals that have an impact on business, charities and voluntary bodies are published on the Cabinet Office website at www.cabinet-office.gov.uk/regulation/index/regrep.htm and subsequently in the six monthly Command Paper of Regulatory Impact Assessments. Both list proposals in date order, with a contact name and telephone number of an official in the appropriate Department who can provide details of the measures and any relevant consultation document or regulatory impact assessment.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  EU (Trades Unions)
  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on proposals for(a) an EU-wide minimum wage and (b) EU-wide collective bargaining by trades unions. [1135377]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  I have been asked to reply.

  (a) Article 137(6) of the Treaty establishing the community specifically excludes action on pay. Therefore pay remains a matter for member states. The introduction of an EU minimum wage would run contrary to that position.

  (b) It is for employers, employees and their representative organisations to agree whether and at what level any bargaining might take place, subject to the requirements of national laws and practices.

  European Public Prosecutor
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations the Government have made on document COM (2000) 008, concerning a European public prosecutor; and if the Government intend to veto proposals to amend the treaties in respect of the Nice Council. [134378]

  Mrs. Roche
  I have been asked to reply.

  Document COM (2000) 608 is the Commission's contribution to the Intergovernmental Conference (IGC) on the protection of the Community's financial interests, and is being considered by member states in that context. The Government's position is that the IGC should focus on the issues necessary for enlargement.

  The United Kingdom Government do not support the creation of a European public prosecutor (EPP) and will oppose any moves in this direction. We have made our position on this clear to the Commission, to the Council and to the European Parliament.

  British-Russia Centre
  Kali Mountford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the annual report of the British-Russia Centre and British East-West Centre will be available. [136226]

  Mr. Vaz
  Copies of the centres' annual report for financial year 1999–2000 were placed in the Libraries of the House last week. The centres received grant in aid from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office of £230,850 to support their activities in 1999–2000. In addition, the centres secured funding of £257,130 for direct expenditure on projects. The centres manage projects to promote and support the development of democratic institutions and the rule of law and society in Russia, Eastern Europe and Central Asia.

  Activities last year included organisation of the UK team of OSCE observers to the Russian Duma elections,
  530W
  hosting a human rights seminar in Minsk, co-hosting a conference on the Russian economy and organising visits and lectures.

  The FCO's quinquennial review of the centres in 1999 confirmed that the centres continued to make a valuable contribution to the strengthening of bilateral relations with Russia, Eastern Europe and Central Asia. The review's main recommendation was that the FCO's grant in aid should be spent on the project work of the centres and that membership activities should become self-financing. The centres have begun to implement this recommendation.

  Parliamentary Scrutiny of Treaties
  Mrs. Ellman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the Government plan to respond to the second report of the Procedure Committee of Session 1999–2000, Parliamentary Scrutiny of Treaties (HC210). [136227]

  Mr. Battle
  The Government's response to the Procedure Committee's report was presented to Parliament yesterday in the form of an unnumbered Command Paper. Copies are available from the Vote Office.

  Kosovo
  Maria Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the supply of hydraulic lifting equipment for use by the Irish KFOR contingent in Kosovo. [136516]

  Mr. Vaz
  We are happy to approve an export licence for the supply of spare parts for the maintenance of hydraulic lifting systems for use by the Irish KFOR contingent. The goods will assist KFOR in the valuable work they are doing reconstructing a peaceful Kosovo.

  These goods appear on the UK's military list. UN Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 1160 (1998) prohibits the supply of arms and related material to the FRY. However, UNSCR 1244 (1999) provides that the prohibitions imposed by SCR 1160 shall not apply to the sale or supply of arms and related material for use by the international civil and security presence in Kosovo.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if Sherbimi Informativ I Kosaves is(a) officially and (b) informally active in Kosovo. [134197]

  Mr. Vaz
  The UN Mission in Kosovo has not given permission to any organisation called Sherbimi Informativ I Kosaves (or Kosovo Intelligence Service) to be active in Kosovo. The international presence in Kosovo continues to monitor and take action against any parallel structures or institutions in Kosovo where they pose a threat to KFOR' s or UNMIK' s objectives.

  European Federation of Retired and Elderly Persons
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to the answer of the
  531W
  Prime Minister of 19 May 2000, Official Report, column 286W, if he will deposit in the Library a copy of his letter to the European Federation of Retired and Elderly Persons. [134145]

  Mr. Vaz
  A copy has been deposited in the Library of the House.

  UN Drug Control Programme
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what assessment he has made of the necessity of genetically modifying the mycotoxins involved in the United Nations Drug Control Programme research into the use of mycotoxins in drug crop eradication programmes; and if he will make a statement; [134272]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the potential dangers arising from United Nations Drug Control Programme research into the use of mycotoxins in drug crop eradication programmes; and if he will make a statement; [134271]

  (3) what assessment he has made of the potential for mutation of the mycotoxins involved in the United Nations Drug Control Programme research into the use of mycotoxins in drug crop eradication programmes; and if he will make a statement; [134273]

  (4) what assessment he has made of the potential dangers arising from the use of (a) naturally occurring and (b) genetically-modified mycotoxins in drug crop eradication programmes; and if he will make a statement. [134274]

  Mr. Battle
  The only United Nations International Drugs Programme (UNDCP) research into mycotoxins in drug crop eradication programmes is into the opium poppy fungus, pleospora papaveracea. The UK has supported this programme which has focused on establishing whether this naturally occurring fungus is viable as an opium poppy control agent and whether the fungus is specific to opium poppy.

  Subject to the progress of research in this phase, a further phase of research would investigate wider safety issues, including the potential for mutation. The Government have made it clear that if research revealed harmful effects, the UK would withdraw support and press for closure of the programme.

  No consideration is being given to the use of genetically modified mycotoxins in drug crop eradication programmes.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much has been contributed by his Department towards the funding of United Nations Drug Control Programme research during each of the last five years for which figures are available. [134276]

  Mr. Battle
  There was no FCO spending on research programmes of the United Nations International Drug Control Programme (UNDCP) in the financial years 1995–96 or 1996–97. Figures since then are as follows:

  1997–98—£100,000 for research into pleospora papaveracea

  1998–99—£58,281 for assessment of drug abuse in Iran

  1999–2000—£1,051,748 for surveys of coca and poppy cultivation in Columbia, Peru and Afghanistan and studies of the drugs trade in Afghanistan.

  532W
  In addition, in 1999–2000 the FCO contributed £100,000 to the UNDCP Caribbean Coordination Mechanism, of which a proportion, not readily disaggregated, contributes to collection of information on the drug problem in the Caribbean region.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which states have contributed towards the funding of United Nations Drug Control Programme research into the use of(a) pleospora papaverecea; (b) fusarium oxysporum and (c) other mycotoxins in drug crop eradication programmes during each of the last five years for which figures are available. [134264]

  Mr. Battle
  The United Kingdom and the United States have contributed to the funding of the United Nations International Drugs Control Programme (UNDCP) research into the opium poppy fungus, pleospora papaveracea. The UK contributed £100,000 to the project in 1998. There is no current UNDCP research into either the coca fungus, fusarium oxysporum, or other mycotoxins for drug crop eradication programmes.

  Saudi Arabia
  Ms Southworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions the United Kingdom Government have had with the Saudi Arabian authorities on the establishment by Saudi Arabia of the governmental and non-governmental organisations recommended by the UN Commission on Human Rights. [133945]

  Mr. Hain
  From discussions between the British Embassy in Riyadh and the Saudi Ministry of Foreign Affairs, we understand that details of the governmental committee are being finalised. As far as we are aware, a date for the committee's first meeting has not been agreed. Progress to establish a non-governmental committee has been slower. We will continue to press the Saudis.

  Ms Southworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations the Government have made to the Saudi Arabian Government in support of increased access to Saudi Arabia for non-governmental human rights monitors, with particular reference to monitors from Amnesty International. [133947]

  Mr. Hain
  The Government have not been asked by Amnesty International or any other non-governmental organisation to approach the Saudi Government about access to the Kingdom. In the first instance, this is a matter for individual NGOs to discuss with the Saudi Government.

  Iran
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has made to the Government of Iran about human rights in that country. [134763]

  Mr. Hain
  We and our EU partners regularly press the Iranian authorities over our concerns about human rights issues in Iran. The Foreign Secretary raised human rights matters with his counterpart Dr. Kamal Kharrazi when they met in New York on 15 September, and also
  533W
  with the Iranian Ambassador to London on 4 October. I too discussed these issues with Ambassador Sarmadi on 19 October.

  In addition, we regularly raise our concerns through our Ambassador in Tehran

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the situation of Jews in Iran. 134776]

  Mr. Hain
  The Jewish community in Iran is represented, as are other minorities, by a member in the Majles, and Judaism is among the religions recognised by the Constitution. Jewish Iranians are free to run businesses and enjoy their own culture, although the right to take public office is circumscribed.

  However, we remain concerned at the sentencing of 10 Jews and two Muslims in the Shiraz trial. We have throughout the trial raised our concerns about the nature of the proceedings. We hope that the Iranian Judiciary will show clemency.

  Peace Process (Middle East)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what contribution he is seeking to make to the resolution of conflict between Israel and the Palestinian people. [134692]

  Mr. Vaz
  My right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary and I are committed to supporting all efforts to bring the parties back to the negotiating table. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary's extended visit to the region was part of the intensive international efforts which led to the Sharm el-Sheikh summit on 16–17 October. The agenda agreed there, for disengagement by both sides, an end to violence and a return to peace talks remains the focus for all as we work with others to end this crisis. My right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary and I are maintaining close contact with the parties.

  War Crimes Tribunal
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the progress of the War Crimes Tribunal in The Hague. [134695]

  Mr. Hain
  To date, ICTY have concluded 11 cases. There are currently 39 individuals in proceedings before the Tribunal and 25 publicly indicated individuals remain at large.

  International Relations (Far East)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the current state of relations between(a) China and Taiwan and (b) North and South Korea. [134735]

  Mr. Battle
  (a) China and Taiwan: We monitor developments in relations across the Taiwan Straits closely. Since the election of Chen Shui bian both sides have shown evidence of restraint in their rhetoric and actions, although they have not yet been able to reach any consensus over the "One China" issue which might enable them to resume direct dialogue. We continue to encourage
  534W
  dialogue between the two sides and we are strongly opposed to the use of force in resolving the question of Taiwan's status.

  (b) We have expressed our strong support for the President of South Korea Kim Dae-Jung's policy of engagement aimed at peace and reconciliation between North and South Korea. We are pleased that both sides are committed to implementing the results of June's Summit and we welcome the people-to-people links that have taken place, including family reunions and co-operation between the North and South Korean teams at the opening of the Sydney Olympics. A series of political and military meetings between both sides is under way. Work has also begun on re-establishing a rail link between North and South Korea across the Demilitarised Zone.

  The engagement process has been given further impetus by the recent US/North Korea negotiations, notably Ms Albright's visit to Pyongyang. There remain many serious issues, including missile proliferation, nuclear matters and human rights, to be discussed and addressed. But progress since the June summit has been encouraging.

  Zimbabwe
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with representatives of political parties in Zimbabwe. [134696]

  Mr. Hain
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has had a number of discussions with Zimbabwean politicians from both the main political parties, including several telephone conversations with the president of the Movement for Democratic Change. More recently, I met members of the MDC Executive on 26 October.

  Sierra Leone
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the situation in Sierra Leone. [134693]

  Mr. Hain
  The Government's strategy towards Sierra Leone was set out in the Foreign Secretary's statement on 6 June. That strategy remains unchanged. Our objective is to ensure that the people of Sierra Leone are offered a realistic prospect of peace and stability, and are freed from the violence of a brutal rebel minority.

  On 10 October Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean announced in another place a further package of UK support to the Sierra Leone Army, and to the UN peacekeeping operation in Sierra Leone. UK assistance will help the Government of Sierra Leone establish effective and accountable armed forces.

  Intergovernmental Conference
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the subject areas which are expected to be on the agenda for negotiations at the Nice Intergovernmental Conference. [134734]

  Mr. Vaz
  The Feira European Council on 19 and 20 June clarified the IGC agenda. It remains focused on the institutional changes necessary for enlargement. The main issues are the size and composition of the
  535W
  Commission, the reweighting of votes in the Council of Ministers, the extension of qualified majority voting and closer co-operation between individual member states.

  Cuba
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to visit Cuba. [134694]

  Mr. Battle
  There are no plans at present for the Secretary of State to visit Cuba.

  Amsterdam Treaty
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the subsidiarity and proportionality protocol in the Treaty of Amsterdam. [134764]

  Mr. Vaz
  The Government regard subsidiarity as a key principle, and support the Amsterdam protocol, which sets out in detail how it is applied. It is too early to make a full assessment of the concrete results of the protocol, as it has only been in force for one year. But the Government are confident that it will be effective because it is legally enforceable, and should therefore help deter the bringing forward of proposals which breach the principle. The better the protocol works, the less we will see it.

  Muslim Fundamentalism
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the growth of international Muslim fundamentalist terrorism. [135020]

  Mr. Battle
  The Government condemn terrorism in all its forms, by whomever or wherever it is committed. In the light of a number of terrorist attacks in recent years attributable to Islamic extremists, the Government take this threat seriously.

  Sanctions against Austria
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what his policy was in relation to(a) the imposition of, and (b) the lifting of sanctions against Austria. [135040]

  Mr. Vaz
  The measures were introduced in February by Austria's EU partners to send a clear signal of our concern at the inclusion of a far-right party in the Austrian Government. I shared the analysis in the 8 September report by the Wise Men that the measures had been successful in influencing the Austrian Government to uphold common democratic values and in energising Austrian civil society, but that the measures would become counterproductive if continued. The Government therefore decided, together with our other EU partners, to lift the measures on 12 September, while remaining vigilant in relation to the Freedom Party.

  HALO Trust
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Russian claims of involvement by the HALO Trust in training terrorists. [135038]
  536W
  Mr. Vaz
  We have repeatedly expressed our concern to the Russian authorities about these allegations. We have seen no credible evidence to support their claims. HALO's sole purpose in Chechnya was to train Chechen civilians in humanitarian mine clearance, as they have done elsewhere.

  National Missile Defence
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what his Department's policy is in relation to National Missile Defence. [135044]

  Mr. Vaz
  I refer the hon. Member to my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary's evidence to the Foreign Affairs Committee's Inquiry on Weapons of Mass Destruction; and to the Government's response to the Committee's recommendations, which was presented to Parliament on 24 October.

  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has held with the United States Secretary of State about National Missile Defense. [134945]

  Mr. Vaz
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has regularly discussed this issue with a range of US interlocutors, including the US Secretary of State.

  Kursk Submarine
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Russian claims of NATO involvement in the loss of the submarine Kursk. [135037]

  Mr. Vaz
  No NATO or UK assets were in the location at the time of the sinking of the Kursk submarine on 12 August.

  Single European Foreign Policy
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what his policy is on the development of a single European foreign policy. [135021]

  Mr. Vaz
  The Government want Europe to have a strong voice in international affairs and are committed to pursuing this through the intergovernmental mechanisms of the European Union's Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP). The Prime Minister launched the European Defence Initiative to strengthen the CFSP and the European contribution to NATO. The EU's CFSP is an increasingly important means of achieving the UK's national foreign policy objectives. The Government, and most member states, favour maintaining the intergovernmental approach to CFSP.

  AIDS (South Africa)
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for International Development on how to assist the South African Government to combat the spread of AIDS. [134923]
  537W
  Mr. Hain
  The HIV/AIDS crisis in Africa is a major development policy priority for the UK Government and there is an on-going dialogue between FCO, DFID and other Government Departments on HIV/AIDS policy both at the international level and within the African region.

  At the international level, recent examples include coordination with DFID for the UN Security Council Resolution on HIV/AIDS and ongoing UN discussions on HIV/AIDS. Health, including HIV/AIDS, is an important part of DFID' s second White Paper due out this autumn, the FCO has worked closely with DFID on this.

  At a regional and country level FCO works closely with DFID in implementing country strategies, each of which have HIV/AIDS prevention and care as a major priority.

  In November 1999, while in South Africa, the Prime Minister announced a package of assistance, worth £22.7 million, to Southern Africa to support the battle against HIV/AIDS. The package includes a development cooperation agreement with the South African Ministry of Health focusing on reproductive health service programmes in selected provinces, as well as HIV/AIDS information awareness and education programmes for young people.

  The UK Government's development assistance also aims to build South African capacity to play a constructive role in regional development issues such as HIV/AIDS.

  Single Currency
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had, and on what dates, with(a) the Chancellor of the Exchequer and (b) the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland about the timing of a future referendum on British participation in the single European currency. [135007]

  Mr. Vaz
  The Secretary of State meets his Cabinet colleagues on a regular basis and discusses a wide range of issues.

  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the political factors affecting his assessment of the desirability of the United Kingdom replacing the pound with the euro. [135042]

  Mr. Vaz
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer said in his statement on 27 October 1997, Official Report, columns 583–88, that the determining factor as to whether Britain joins a single currency is the national economic interest, and whether the economic case for doing so is clear and unambiguous.

  He also stated that
  there is no constitutional bar to British membership of EMU.

  Ex-President Milosevic
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he intends to take to ensure that ex-President Milosevic is brought to trial. [134947]
  538W
  Mr. Vaz
  We have made it clear to the Government of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia that we will expect it to meet its international obligations in a spirit of partnership with the international community. This includes cooperation with the International Criminal Tribunal for former Yugoslavia.

  Iraq
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what his assessment is of Iraq's access to weapons of mass destruction.[134922]

  Mr. Hain
  Up until their withdrawal from Iraq in December 1998, UN weapons inspectors consistently reported to the United Nations Security Council that serious gaps remained in Iraq's declarations on chemical and biological weapons and ballistic missiles. We are deeply concerned that weapons inspectors have been unable to operate in Iraq for approaching two years. Hence the importance we attach to the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) gaining access to Iraq at the earliest opportunity.

  Biological Weapons Convention
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of current Russian compliance with the provisions of the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention. [135041]

  Mr. Hain
  The United Kingdom makes global assessments on compliance with all arms control regimes, including the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention (BTWC), which draw upon intelligence sources. We do not comment on intelligence matters.

  Russia is a state party and depositary Government of the BTWC and is currently participating in the negotiations in Geneva on a compliance protocol to strengthen the convention. We very much hope that these negotiations will be successful, as such a protocol would improve transparency of the activities which could be abused for the development of biological weapons and provide internationally agreed mechanisms with which to pursue compliance concerns.

  Lord Levy
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the role of Lord Levy has been in the Middle East during the past three months. [134944]

  Mr. Hain
  During the past three months Lord Levy has been to Israel, the Palestinian Authority, Jordan and Egypt. In Israel he met Prime Minister Barak, President Katsav and other ministers. In the Palestinian Authority he met President Arafat and other senior Palestinian figures. In Jordan he met King Abdullah and various other ministers. In Egypt he met Foreign Minister Moussa and various other senior officials. He also accompanied the Foreign Secretary during his recent visit to the region.

  International Criminal Court
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made in the establishment of an International Criminal Court. [134946]

  Mr. Hain
  To date the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court has been signed by 115 states and ratified by 22. The court will be established once 60 states ratify. A Preparatory Commission completed two important subsidiary documents to the statute at its last session in June.

  Moscow Visit
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to visit Moscow. [134920]

  Mr. Vaz
  The Foreign Secretary has no plans at present to visit Russia.

  EU (Co-sovereignty)
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what his policy is towards the proposal of the German Foreign Minister for co-sovereignty between states within the European Union. [135039]

  Mr. Vaz
  The Government welcome all contributions to the debate on Europe's future. Our own views were set out by the Prime Minister in his speech in Warsaw on 6 October.

  European Charter of Fundamental Rights
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the relationship between Articles 3 and 13 of the draft European Charter of Fundamental Rights. [134820]

  Mr. Vaz
  Article 13 (freedom of the arts and sciences) is a general statement of the principles in ECHR Article 10, as far as it applies to arts and sciences. The latter article allows limitations. The freedom of research in Article 13 must be interpreted consistently with Article 3 and subject to the limitations permitted under Article 10 ECHR.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much money he estimates will need to be set aside for implementation of the draft Charter of Fundamental Rights for(a) legal aid for cases brought under it and (b) legal costs for Her Majesty's Government to defend against claims. [135569]

  Mr. Vaz
  None. The charter is a political declaration and is not legally binding. It brings together in a single document fundamental rights, freedoms and principles that already exist within the EU.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list those UK agencies covered by Article 36 of the draft Charter of Fundamental Rights. [135573]

  Mr. Vaz
  The charter will be a political declaration of rights, freedoms and principles and is not legally binding. Article 36 deals with the principle of the EU Institutions 540W
  respecting access to services of general economic interest. The article reflects Article 16 of the Treaty establishing the European Community and does not create any new right.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his policy towards inclusion of Article 12.2 in the Charter of Fundamental Rights. [135568]

  Mr. Vaz
  Article 12.2 of the charter is a restatement of the existing principle set out in Article 191 of the Treaty establishing the European Community.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if, pursuant to Article 23 of the draft Charter of Fundamental Rights, he proposes to adopt measures for specific advantage in favour of the under-represented sex in the work force; and in which case men are the under-represented. [135567]

  Mr. Vaz
  No. The charter is a political declaration of rights, freedoms and principles recognised within the EU, and is not legally binding.

  East Timor
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assistance the UK is providing for East Timor's civil and foreign service. [135072]

  Mr. Battle
  [holding answer 30 October 2000]Ten members of East Timor's future diplomatic service will attend a four-week training course in the UK from 4 November to 5 December. We have also made a commitment to assist with civil service training for the newly established National Council in the New Year.

  Italy
  Mr. Casale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the state of relations between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of Italy. [135851]

  Mr. Vaz
  Our bilateral relations with Italy are excellent, and continue to flourish. The closeness of the relationship was further demonstrated by the very successful state visit to Italy last month, when the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh enjoyed the exceptionally warm welcome and hospitality of the Italian people. The Queen and the Duke were accompanied on the visit by the Foreign Secretary, and the Minister for Europe. Both Ministers met leading figures from Italian politics.

  Mr. Casale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the impact of the recent state visit to Italy. [135850]

  Mr. Vaz
  The state visit to Italy has served to convey the strongest possible reaffirmation of the high regard that our countries have for one another; as friends, allies and economic partners. The Queen's meetings with leading figures from the political and business fields, as well as those of the Foreign Secretary and the Minister for Europe, demonstrated the keenness that our countries have to work closely together, for the mutual benefit of both countries, and for the EU as a whole.

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

Multiple Sclerosis: Beta Interferon
Lord Mackie of Benshie Lord Mackie of Benshie asked Her Majesty's Government:
Why sufferers from multiple sclerosis cannot receive the drug Beta Interferon in certain parts of the United Kingdom while in other parts it is available.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): My Lords, it is because of our determination to tackle the problems of postcode prescribing that we asked the National Institute for Clinical Excellence to conduct an authoritative appraisal of the evidence on Beta Interferon as part of its first appraisal programme; NICE has not yet issued any final guidance.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Is it not extraordinary that NICE was asked in August 1999 to report on this important drug but there is still no sign of a report? I understand that appeals have been made. What appeals can there be against clinical judgment and scientific evidence?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, NICE undertakes a programme which allows for evidence to be carefully considered, for meetings to be held with manufacturers, sponsors and patient groups, for external submissions to be received and for assessment reports— in this case, from the Northern and Yorkshire Drug and Therapeutic Centre—to be made. When that process has been gone through, the initial appraisal committee meets to consider Beta Interferon. It produces a provisional assessment, which is made available to the interested parties. The final appraisal committee has to meet to consider these matters. There is also an independent appeals process. Clearly, there are a considerable number of stages in that process, but I believe that that is right because the guidance given by NICE is crucial in deciding whether a particular drug or treatment is effective and cost-effective. It is therefore right that it has to take some time to ensure that the final guidance is as good as it possibly can be.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the interim report on Beta Interferon issued by NICE was very unfavourably received by sufferers from multiple sclerosis? The report said that the drug should continue to be available to those already taking it but not to others.
940
The matter is now being further considered. Can the Minister say whether NICE takes into account the relative cost of £10,000 for the drug—I know that value for money is one of the considerations—as compared with the cost of supporting the patient if he is unable to work and has to rely entirely on the state? Is that one of the factors taken into consideration by NICE, or is it simply a question of the effectiveness of the drug?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, it is difficult for me to comment on the consideration of Beta Interferon because NICE is still in the process of producing final guidance. It would not be appropriate for Ministers to comment on that process until the final guidance has been received. The noble Baroness asked about the methodology used by NICE. Its task is to access the evidence of all the clinical and other health-related benefits of an intervention. That is taken in a wide sense, to include impact on quality of life, the relief of pain or disability and any impact on likely length of life. It has to estimate the associated costs and reach a judgment on whether, on balance, the intervention can be recommended as a cost-effective use of NHS resources.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, is not the real answer to my noble friend's Question a gross lack of resources on the part of NICE? This year, some 26 appraisals along with other work will need to be carried out by NICE. Next year, 45 appraisals will be carried out. Yet NICE operates with only 28 full-time equivalent staff. Is that why the head of NICE's appraisal section resigned in July this year?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, NICE has done a valuable job in the year it has been in operation. It has produced a considerable amount of valuable guidance on drugs and treatments. I can assure the noble Lord that we shall keep under review the budget and scale of work that we commit to NICE in order to ensure that it is able to keep pace with the demands being made of it. Coming back to the issue of Beta Interferon, the time NICE has taken to go through the various stages is absolutely justifiable in terms of reaching the right conclusion at the end of the process.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, can my noble friend give the House the text of the precise factors that are taken into account in determining whether the drug is cost-effective? Can he give an assurance that those who determine whether a particular course of treatment is cost-effective are capable of arriving, from an accounting stand-point, at the precise figures on which he relies?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, in my response to the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, I mentioned the general indicators considered by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence when reaching a judgment on a treatment's efficacy and cost-effectiveness. NICE's own board and advisory committees, which comprise some of the best experts

941
in this country, are able to offer advice on such considerations. The institute must ultimately make a judgment, taking into account factors such as how effective a particular treatment is likely to be, its cost and its impact on patients in the NHS. A balance has to be struck. If drug is expensive but offers only limited clinical benefit, NICE would probably be expected to advise against its use.
Perhaps I may say also that, over the past few months, NICE has sent guidance to NHS organisations recommending that a number of drugs which previously were available only sporadically in the NHS should be made more generally available. As I have said, NICE should have an impact in ensuring that the treatments and drugs used in the health service are both clinically effective and cost-effective. In many cases, if they are, they will be brought into general use within the NHS far more quickly than has been the case in the past.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, is it not a fact that Beta Interferon has been made available to certain NHS patients in certain NHS trusts? Does the Minister agree that this amounts to what is, in effect, a two-tier health system?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, that is precisely why we have referred this matter to NICE. At the moment, health authorities operate a policy introduced in 1995 by the previous government. Essentially, it provides for individual cases to be considered on their merits. It is clear that that has led to enormous variations in policy in terms of the number of people receiving Beta Interferon in different health authorities. The effect of the guidance from NICE, when eventually it is published, will be a much more uniform application in accordance with that guidance.

Nurses: Recruitment
2.44 p.m.
Lord Islwyn Lord Islwyn asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have any new plan to increase the recruitment of nurses throughout the United Kingdom.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the Department of Health is improving recruitment and retention by encouraging the National Health Service in England to become a better employer, increasing training places, attracting former staff back to the NHS, encouraging flexible retirement and supporting more effective collaborative international recruitment.
Lord Islwyn: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that nursing is the most understaffed profession in the National Health Service and that a large percentage of student nurses drop out of their training courses? Is this not essentially still a legacy from 18 years of
942
Conservative government? Is the Minister not sad to see trusts up and down the country applying to the Philippines, to India, to South Africa and even to China for their recruits? I noticed that my own NHS trust in Gwent has been trying to attract recruits from Finland. Surely that cannot be right. What is needed is a radical reappraisal of nurses' pay and conditions, because nurses certainly deserve better.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, my noble friend has raised a number of interesting questions. I do not doubt for a moment that the impact of the internal market and the decision of the previous government to stage a number of recommendations from the nurses' pay review body led to demoralisation among nursing staff, alongside reductions in the number of training places. We are now turning this round. We have increased the number of training places. Through our recruitment campaign, we have attracted more qualified nurses back into the health service. Today, 10,000 more nurses are working in the health service than was the case two years ago.
As regards international recruitment, it is clear that we need to recruit more nurses. We have traditionally recruited internationally, provided that that does not have an adverse impact on health service provision in the home countries. I believe that it is entirely justifiable. Indeed, international recruits play an extremely important part in the provision of services by the NHS.
Lord Rotherwick: My Lords, does the Minister agree that it is not correct to seek to benefit our national health system by recruiting nurses from countries such as the Philippines, which has been done over recent years? Surely it is wrong that such countries should be denied the benefit of using their own highly skilled nurses, who have been trained using only the scarce resources that are usually available?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I agree with the general proposition that recruiting from countries overseas would not be advisable if that action would have a detrimental effect on the home healthcare systems of those countries. That is why, in November last year, the Government published guidance to the NHS which stressed that, while international recruitment should be valued for its contribution to this country's health services, it is a viable proposition only when, first, its benefit to an individual NHS organisation can be demonstrated and, secondly, such recruitment into the NHS will not have a negative impact on the home country's healthcare system. I am confident that NHS organisations are recruiting internationally according to those guidelines.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, perhaps I may congratulate my noble friend on the campaign

943
launched to attract qualified nurses back into the profession. However, I should tell him about one difficulty that has arisen—
Noble Lords: Question!
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, is the Minister aware that, even when experienced people do decide to return to the service, they are often placed at the lower end of their grading for pay? That is the case even for those with great experience. Does the Minister agree that this does not serve to encourage experienced staff to apply for posts?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, my noble friend usually tells me what he wants me to know. I agree that it is important that experienced nurses who are attracted back into the National Health Service after having moved away from their careers for some time should be given every support and encouragement. As regards the issue of grading, of course such matters must be left to be decided by each individual NHS trust. However, I agree with my noble friend that, when reaching such decisions, it is important to take into account the valuable past experience of nurses who have been away from the profession for some time.
Baroness Northover: My Lords, does the Minister agree that, while the recruitment of nurses is clearly urgent, of much greater concern is the retention of staff? Does he further agree that if he were to tackle low morale, inflexible working arrangements and low pay more effectively, that would help to solve the recruitment problem?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I certainly agree that the retention of nurses is very important. In regard to pay, our decision to accept without question the recommendations of the pay review body has been a considerable improvement on previous practice. I also agree that introducing more flexible working practices is a way of encouraging more nurses to stay in the National Health Service. There are now many examples where NHS trusts have recognised the need for better HR strategies and improved support. This is paying dividends. We are seeing more nurses coming back into and staying in the service. We have to redouble our efforts, but I am convinced that we shall achieve the 20,000 extra nurses we require in accordance with the targets set in the NHS plan.
Lord Acton: My Lords, can my noble friend give an indication of how many nurses have been attracted back by this campaign?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, as I said, we have 10,000 more nurses working in the health service now as compared with two years ago. In relation to the specific campaigns, 3,000 nurses returned last year; nearly 2,500 have returned since March; and another 2,200 nurses are preparing to return to the health service. We are running another campaign in certain
944
areas of the country this autumn; we shall run further campaigns in the future. We are very anxious that former nurses will consider the NHS as a place in which to work again in the future.
Baroness Whitaker: My Lords—
Noble Lords: Next Question!
Baroness Whitaker: My Lords, does my noble friend agree—
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Jay of Paddington): My Lords, we have reached 16 minutes. I hope that my noble friend will understand if we move on.

Inter-Governmental Conference, Nice
2.52 p.m.
Lord Renton of Mount Harry Lord Renton of Mount Harry asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are considering accepting changes in majority voting and the number of European Union Commissioners at the forthcoming Inter-Governmental Conference in Nice.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): My Lords, the Government have made clear on a number of occasions that we are prepared to look pragmatically at extending the areas subject to qualified majority voting where this would benefit Britain, while ruling it out for areas of key national interest. As at Amsterdam, we believe that in the interests of a more efficient Commission the larger member states should be prepared to give up their second Commissioner provided that a satisfactory agreement is achieved on the re-weighting of votes in the Council. We have made clear that there must be substantial re-weighting in Britain's favour if we are to give up one of our Commissioners.
Lord Renton of Mount Harry: My Lords, perhaps I may first welcome back the noble Baroness. Her friends on all sides of the House are very pleased to see her back on the Front Bench.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Renton of Mount Harry: My Lords, is not this an issue on which the Government will have to come rather more off the fence, and fairly quickly? Clearly the question of the extension of qualified majority voting is highly emotive. Does the Minister agree that, arguably, it could be the fault line that divides those who, in the famous words of the treaties, want an ever closer Union from those who want a more effective Union but do not want it to be any closer? Will there

945
not be an essential moment at Nice when this division may start to appear and the Government will have to be very clear on which side they will come down?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, perhaps I may first thank the noble Lord for his kind compliments on my return, and all noble Lords who have generously asked after my health. I am very glad to be back.
As to the noble Lord's supplementary question, the Government have not been on the fence. We have taken a balanced and realistic view of what is in the best interests of this country. The noble Lord will know that the majority of decisions in Europe already are taken by the use of qualified majority voting. We have been clear that where qualified majority voting will inure to the benefit of Britain, we will contemplate change. Where it will not, we will not. That has been our position for some time. It is a sound position and one which we propose to continue.
Lord Harrison: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that by the judicious extension of QMV we can make the single European market more open to British business? This will provide more opportunities for British firms and will translate into prosperity and jobs.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend that judicious extension of QMV may inure to our benefit, as I said to the noble Lord, Lord Renton. We shall be vigilant to ensure that it is only on occasions when it will inure to our benefit that we will give it consideration.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, perhaps we on these Benches may also welcome the Minister back to her brilliant defence of her wicket and say how pleased we are to see her.
Is it not correct that some extension of qualified majority voting and some reduction in the number of Commissioners is crucial to the enlargement of the Union, a goal shared by many of us on all sides of the House? Can she say whether, with the extension of qualified majority voting, the Government would support, as a broad general rule, co-decision making by the European Parliament in order to strengthen the democratic accountability which is so crucial to the success of the Union in future?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I join wholeheartedly with the noble Baroness in saying that the Government are committed to the enlargement of the European Union. We have been at the forefront of that, and quite rightly too. So far as concerns qualified majority voting, I repeat what I said earlier. That must remain the case. The issue of co-decision making is being looked at by a number of parties and we have said that we shall consider the matter. But the noble Baroness perhaps pushes me to go further than the Government are minded to go at the moment.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, can the Minister confirm that any treaty signed at Nice will require
946
ratification by both Houses of Parliament? If that is so, could she speculate as to what rights Parliament would have were it minded to reject ratification? Would that be within its powers?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I cannot answer the noble Viscount's question directly. The noble Viscount will know that at the conference the decision will be based on what each country decides. That will be the final determinator of the position. Scrutiny is certainly possible under our procedure. Whether that would enable the decision to be overturned is quite another matter. I shall be happy to write to the noble Lord with a fuller response after I have had an opportunity to give the matter mature consideration.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, whatever the powers and however emotive the issue, noble Lords on all sides of the House who want to see enlargement of the European Union must surely recognise that it would be absurd not to consider the issue of the number of Commissioners and other matters relating to qualified majority voting. Can my noble friend avoid apologising for the Government doing just that?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I hope I have not apologised as my noble friend indicated. I make it plain that there are areas where a move to qualified majority voting would be advantageous to the United Kingdom. Indeed, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister made this clear at Biarritz. One such area concerns the rules of procedure for the European Court, where the United Kingdom have pushed for QMV to improve the court's efficiency and to speed up access to justice. Other areas concern aspects of transport, industrial policy, appointments and financial regulations. So there are areas where we would benefit from change. The Government are determined that Britain should enjoy that benefit wherever possible.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, while the number of Commissioners is obviously important, does the noble Baroness agree that an even more important issue is the curbing of the expansionary tendencies of the Commission, its desire to involve itself in inter-governmental areas and its enormously excessive workload? The Prime Minister touched on this in his Warsaw speech, but what precise proposals will the Government take to Nice in order to meet this central issue in the name of democracy in the European Union.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, we have made it clear that the real issues will be dealt with by the Council and not the Commission. I know that many noble Lords have expressed concern about the ambit of the Commission's work. We have continued to examine these issues but, clearly, the Commission's role is different, and separate, from that of the Council. Although there seems to be confusion in the

947
minds of others, we need to be clear that the power base remains with the Council, not with the Commission.

Mandatory Life Prisoners
3 p.m.
The Earl of Longford The Earl of Longford asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have any plans to remove decisions about the release of all mandatory life prisoners from the Home Secretary and transfer them to an independent body.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Bassam of Brighton): My Lords, the Government have no plans to change the arrangements for deciding when mandatory life sentence prisoners should be released from prison. The Home Secretary takes that decision on the recommendation of the Parole Board.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, I have so much respect for the Minister that I am sure that he cannot be happy with that feeble reply. Is not the trouble with the Home Secretary deciding these matters that he has a duty to take account of public opinion in the widest sense, including that of the tabloid press, which may be cruel and unjust to prisoners? Secondly, is the Minister aware that leading Law Lords have expressed an opinion that is contrary to his?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the Law Lords have been expressing that opinion for a very long time. The Home Secretary has made his position perfectly plain. We have no plans to change the current arrangements, with which we are entirely happy. As to the influence of the tabloid press, I cannot believe that a Labour Home Secretary would be in any way, shape or form influenced by the tabloid press. He will continue to form a balanced view, as he always has done in these matters.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, is the Minister aware of the Second Report of the Home Affairs Select Committee, published on 15th May 1996 entitled, Murder: The Mandatory Life Sentence? At paragraph 14 of the report, the committee recommended that the responsibility for setting the tariff and for taking decisions on release should be removed from the Home Secretary and should go to the judges, with the Court of Appeal as the final arbiter. Why does the Home Secretary behave like a drowning man clinging to insubstantial wreckage?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the last thing that one could accuse the Home Secretary of doing is clinging to wreckage like a drowning man. That is not at all his demeanour. I defer to the noble and learned
948
Lord's knowledge of the report of the Home Affairs Select Committee. I am aware of the report; but the Government take a different view.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, if the courts were to decide that the present law was incompatible with the human rights convention, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, recently suggested is likely, will the Government stick to their opinion?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the Government, including the Home Secretary, take the view that, in terms of any action in the event of a declaration of incompatibility, it will be for government to propose and for Parliament to dispose. The matter will rest with the Government.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the simplest way to get rid of this problem is to abolish the mandatory life sentence? Is it not the case that murder ranges from sadistic serial killings at one end of the scale to mercy killings at the other? Would it not be appropriate for judges to be given the same kind of sentencing discretion over murder as they have over all other crimes?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the noble Lord touches on an important issue. It must be remembered that, in practice, the mandatory life sentence is highly flexible. The noble Lord's question suggested that flexibility is required. The judiciary has the opportunity to take cognizance of the facts and the circumstances of, for example, mercy killings at one end of the scale and terrorist offences at the other. We believe that the flexibility is there, and we have no plans to change the mandatory life sentence.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, if a declaration of incompatibility with the Human Rights Act were to be issued by the Law Lords, is the Minister saying that the Home Secretary might nevertheless disregard that finding and continue on the present path?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, it will be a decision for government. Our view is that the current arrangements are satisfactory and we intend to stick by them.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, does the Minister agree that, in granting the release of those who have received a mandatory life sentence, the Home Secretary has a responsibility to consider the public benefit and the effect that their release will have? Does he further agree that such a requirement is not necessarily present if the Law Lords have to do that, because their responsibility is towards the person concerned, and not towards the public?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the Home Secretary must take account of a broad range of views. The views of the public are important, as are those of the victims of crime. We must take careful account of

949
both. That is one of the matters that has driven public policy in recent years, particularly under this Government.

Countryside and Rights of Way Bill
3.6 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 1 [Principal definitions for Part I]:
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 12, at end insert ("and is at least 2 hectares in size").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I begin by thanking the Government for the amendments that they have tabled. This measure would have been almost impossible to administer on the ground, and their amendments will make it slightly easier to administer. I hope that the Government will continue to show flexibility during the Report stage, so that we can end up with a Bill that is sensible and workable. That is what all sides of the House want.
In Amendment No 1, we return to a theme that was discussed in Committee; namely, the question of the minimum size of a piece of land to be designated by the countryside agencies. In the Bill as presently drafted, there is flexibility for the Countryside Agency or an appropriate body to designate various parcels of land. However, I question whether that is cost-effective and whether there would be conformity of approach throughout the country.
If there is flexibility in that approach—which I admit has certain merits—it means that the appropriate authority will have to spend a considerable amount of time investigating every single bit of land, however small, in order to decide whether it is suitable for inclusion. The purpose of my amendment is to save time and money by imposing a minimum of two hectares.
The amendment I proposed in Committee sought a minimum of five hectares, and my noble friend on the Front Bench tabled an amendment in favour of 10 hectares. I listened to what the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, had to say on the matter. His argument that five or 10 hectares was too big had merit. I do not think that two hectares is too big. It would make the job of the appropriate authority very much easier if it could apply such a minimum. That would save a great deal of time and expense and would provide consistency throughout England and Wales. I beg to move.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I support my noble friend's amendment. Clearly, the Government considered our original amendments. I remember "football pitches" being referred to in Committee and it was said that the original size proposed in the amendments was too big. I urge the Minister to consider the amendment that is now before the House.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Lord Whitty): My Lords, the noble Lord seems to regard this as a bit of a negotiating session; indeed, we have gone down from 10 to 5 and now to 2. I suppose that I should be grateful for that. However, there is a principle involved here. The Government have recognised some of the arguments put forward from various quarters of this House. We have, in total, tabled about 40 amendments, most of which give some further leeway or greater flexibility to landowners. Therefore, most of them reflect the degree to which we have been prepared to listen to arguments in this House.
The amendment now before us, and many that follow, seeks to take those restrictions further. We have provided a flexibility for the countryside bodies to take them further in appropriate circumstances. There seem to be two problems. The first is that there is a mood in some quarters of this House that the restrictions should be greater than the Government have accepted. We believe that we now have a sensible range of amendments, which take account of earlier arguments. However—I say this not necessarily in relation solely to this amendment—we believe that we have gone far enough down that road. Minor alterations may be necessary here and there which we will accept in terms of today's arguments, but, in general, we believe that what we now have is a sensible balance.
We have also provided for a means to adjust that balance in response to factors that become apparent in the administration, in the mapping, or in the experience of operating access. We have given a discretion to the countryside bodies, under Clause 4(5) of the Bill, to decide not to map small areas of open country if it appears impractical or not sensible. That provides a practical and sensible tool, but does not mean the exclusion of all small areas of open countryside, many of which are quite attractive and ought to be open to the general public. That provision will allow bodies to exclude parcels of land that would involve wholly disproportionate effort, wholly disproportionate costs to survey or provide wholly insignificant benefit to the potential users.
In implementing the legislation, the countryside bodies may exclude land greater or less than two hectares. It is a matter for them to resolve in the light of the mapping process and in the light of experience. For example, they may decide to apply different thresholds to some types of land. We do not see any reason to interfere with that discretion. Part of the problem seems to be that some noble Lords, especially from the party opposite, do not trust the Countryside Agency to exercise this discretion fairly and equitably. If we cannot trust our public bodies—there are great public servants who operate within the Countryside Agency—we shall have difficulty in making this Bill work in general. We should not make the situation worse for the agency by imposing on it arbitrary limitations. We should leave such matters to its discretion. I hope that noble Lords, both in respect of this amendment and others, will overcome their paranoia about the Countryside Agency and recognise

951
that that is the way in which flexibility operates under our system of government in this area, as well as in others.
The amendment would not excuse the countryside bodies from the duty to consider including such land; it would simply introduce an arbitrary cut-off point. That seems to me to represent an inhibition as regards achieving equity and common sense in their task, rather than making it easier. The amendment also fails to recognise that open country comes in many shapes and sizes. A small area of wasteland formed by the angle of two roads might genuinely provide a useful recreational area in the vicinity of a village. But a similar sized area would be less significant if it were on the edge of, say, Dartmoor. We are certainly not prepared to assume that it is not worth granting a right of access to all land of a size of less than two hectares. Indeed, it is much better to leave such discretion to the countryside bodies. I hope, therefore, that the noble Earl will not pursue this amendment, and others, that would fetter such discretion and make the job of mapping that much more difficult.
3.15 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister. However, I cannot follow his final comment; namely, that it would make the job of mapping more difficult if we excluded small areas. I believe that it would make that task that much easier. The whole point of my amendment is that if you say that no land below two hectares is to be mapped, it will make the whole process for the countryside bodies so much simpler. Indeed, everyone would be clear on the position—the countryside bodies and the owners and occupiers of land. But if you have a fully flexible system, which the noble Lord advocates, that will lead to wholly disproportionate costs in many areas and to inconsistencies throughout the country.
I believe that the noble Lord's arguments are wrong. It is not a question of mistrusting the countryside bodies. At the, end of the day, it is a question of pure practicality. That is what I am trying to achieve. It should be clear for the countryside bodies and for those occupying the land that small areas need not be mapped. That would be clear, cost effective and surely must be right. However, I realise that the Government are utterly entrenched on the matter. I believe them to be wrong, but only time will prove who is right. I hope that the Minister will be able to quantify in due course the extra costs to the countryside bodies of this work and that he will account to Parliament for it. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer moved Amendment No. 1A:
Page 2, line 8, after ("Agency") insert ("which shall carry out its obligations under this Act through its employees unless contracting out to third parties is agreed by the access authority in consultation with the local access forum").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 1B. I should like to welcome the fact that we have arrived
952
at the Report stage of this Bill and to say how pleased we are on these Benches with the progress made in Committee, especially the number of amendments that the Government have brought forward.
However, during our discussions in Committee, the words "discretion" and "sensitivity" were mentioned many times in relation to the Countryside Agency. Indeed, I believe that the Minister mentioned those words just a short while ago. The way in which the agency exercises such discretion is obviously crucial. These amendments were prompted by concerns as to exactly how that discretion will operate. It is clear that the Countryside Agency will not be able to begin to implement all of the functions that it will now have to undertake as a result of the Bill. It will obviously have to contract out a large number of the tasks that will arise as a result of this legislation, as is the case with the mapping.
In practice, contractual arrangements depend very much on how successful the original specification is in drawing up the exact responsibilities of the private enterprise as regards the people with whom it will be dealing. Given the fact that the agency will have a relationship between access authorities, local access forums and the agency—with the contractor somewhere in the middle—we need to hear from the Minister exactly what is in the Government's mind in terms of giving guidance to the agency about contracting out these very sensitive areas of work. Indeed, they would include not only the mapping but also appeals on behalf of landowners about closures, which was something that exercised all our minds in Committee; for example, when it would be reasonable to grant discretion to landowners to close their land beyond the 28 days given in the Bill. However, I am sure that we shall debate that issue again at equal length.
I should like to know what sort of guidance the Government intend to give the agency on such matters. In the event of the contract not being a happy arrangement in a certain area, can the Minister say what process could be followed in such circumstances? For example, will there be a right of appeal to the Countryside Agency because the contractor is not carrying out its duty in the way that people had hoped? Alternatively, will the appeal be to the Secretary of State? At present, I am quite unclear as to how that relationship would work in these extremely sensitive areas. I beg to move.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham): My Lords, although the meaning of this amendment, as printed, is no doubt clear, I must point out to your Lordships that there are two printing mistakes in it. The quotation marks should appear before the words "covered" and "of", not before the words "leave" and "insert".
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, this seems to me a sensible amendment. I believe that probably most Members of your Lordships' House have become increasingly anxious that the agency will have an enormous amount to do, and some of that in a short

953
space of time. It is important that the agency should be able to contract out and that Parliament should know the conditions under which that is done and what happens if the people who do the contracting out do not properly fulfil their responsibilities. I am sure that noble Lords will listen to the Minister's response with great interest.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I apologise to your Lordships; it is I who have made a mistake on this occasion. I referred to two errors which we shall no doubt come to in due course. Amendment No. 1A, as proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, states:
"Page 2, line 8, after ('Agency') insert ('which shall carry out its duties under this Act through its employees unless contracting out to third parties is agreed by the access authority in consultation with the local access forum')".
I am sorry for having detained your Lordships because of my error.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, these amendments would require the countryside bodies to consult with local access forums before appointing a contractor. That is a significant inhibition on the Countryside Agency in carrying out this work. As we shall discover when we discuss the relevant amendments, local access forums are regarded as an important factor in assessing how we establish and manage access. However, we do not believe that they are appropriate bodies to consult in the context we are discussing.
The countryside bodies are required to produce maps of all registered common land and open country. They will be required by regulations to consult widely on draft maps, consider representations, then produce provisional maps for confirmation or amendment following the hearing of any appeals by the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales.
That is a considerable task. We cannot expect the countryside bodies to use directly employed staff in all contexts. The in-house staff will not have all of the technical expertise that is required. When specialist staff can be contracted to carry out certain work it would not be sensible for the countryside bodies to employ specialists for a limited period and then dispense with them. The bodies involved have already taken steps to identify, and where necessary contract, organisations and individuals with the right skills to do this work. As we discussed earlier, they are working closely with the Ordnance Survey to ensure high technical standards. In mapping and other areas they will need expertise which complements their in-house expertise. However, oversight and responsibility for all this work will rest with the countryside bodies. Their staff will set the parameters, oversee the operation of the contracts and will have a direct and vital role in discussions with the interested parties during the process and afterwards. They take extremely seriously the prospect of carrying out their functions. They are determined to carry out that work in a professional and transparent manner.
954
The amendments imply that we would employ particular bodies for particular mapping purposes. However, it is more likely that we would employ under contract particular organisations or personnel for their general expertise. It would therefore be difficult to engage a significant number of local access forums in the contractual arrangements, as the amendments would require, because they would be organised on a national or regional basis rather than on an area or county basis. There may be occasions where that is not the case but in those situations the countryside bodies' own staff would engage in full consultation with the relevant local access forums.
As regards guidance to the Countryside Agency, I think I have indicated that it will have tight overall management of this work. We shall not give specific guidance to the Countryside Agency on contracting out. However, the provisions in regulations—I refer, in particular, to Clause 11 which concerns regulations relating to maps—will set out in detail the requirements for consultation and appeal, which the noble Baroness was particularly worried about, and will allow us to concentrate on achieving the right outcomes without interfering in the way in which the Countryside Agency mobilises the inputs, whether in terms of direct staff or separate contracted companies or individuals. Therefore the fact that that body will be in charge of the procedure will safeguard the appeals process. What we are really talking about here is deploying expertise.
As I say, the Countryside Agency will be in charge of the process. It will consult with local interest groups and local access forums. Most of the expertise will probably consist of contracted specialists. I believe that the amendments are inappropriate. I hope that the noble Baroness will not press them.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his full reply. He mentioned the spirit of the approach that the Government will adopt towards the agency. That is helpful. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 1 B not moved.]
Viscount Bledisloe Viscount Bledisloe moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 2, line 15, at end insert ("is open and which").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this is a drafting amendment but it raises a point of considerable importance as it affects the whole question of what constitutes access land. I hasten to assure the Minister that in raising this point I am in no way infected with paranoia.
The first aim of the Bill, as stated in Clause 1(1)(a), is to give access to "open country". The question of what constitutes open country is conclusively resolved and defined in Clause 1(2) which states that ""open country' means"—that is therefore exclusive—
"land which—
appears to the appropriate countryside body to consist wholly or predominantly of mountain, moor, heath or down".

955
For the purposes of the point I am making I shall concentrate on downs. By that definition, any land which appears to consist mainly of down is open country. Thus, if one has an area of land which is undoubtedly mainly down, it is within the definition of open country and therefore becomes access land even if it is not open at all. That point became apparent on the first day of Committee in this Chamber when there was discussion of a technical nature as to what constituted a down. The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, suggested that that probably included parts of the Cotswolds, the Yorkshire Wolds and other such places. It then became apparent to me that if those areas of countryside are considered downs, they are within the primary definition of open country, whether or not they are open. No one, not even the Countryside Commission, can say, "They are down but they are not open and therefore we shall not treat them as open country".
The definition states that all land which is down is open country and therefore under Clause 4(1) it must he mapped, unless, of course, it is of a de minimis quantity. That cannot be what was intended. I give an analogy. Let us suppose that an Act protects ancient dwellings but states that an ancient dwelling means any building constructed before 1600. Then any such building is included, whether or not it is a dwelling. One has precisely the same situation here in that any down is included, whether or not it is open. Therefore I wish the definition to state that open country constitutes land which is open and which appears to be wholly or predominantly heath or down.
I confidently hope that the Minister will gratefully accept my freely-given advice and improvement to the Bill. I beg to move.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I support the amendment. It is the first time that I have heard the noble Viscount's arguments. They sound eminently sensible and help with the description over which we struggled for such a long time in Committee.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, can the Minister confirm that in construing the definition of "open country", which appears to the appropriate body to consist of the various types of land described, that body must apply the usual Wednesbury principle? Bearing that in mind, the definition of open country is used to define access land and has to be read alongside the schedule of exceptions from open land. One has to marry the definitions together. Nevertheless, the point is already covered.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the noble Viscount refers to this as a drafting amendment. Taken literally, it is closer to a wrecking amendment. I am not sure that that is the noble Viscount's intention but in practice that would be the effect. It would mean that enclosed land, typically fields, could not be mapped as open country for the purposes of the Bill. As the noble Viscount hinted, the effect would be to exclude most downland and significant areas of moor and heath from the definition of access land.
956
The term "open country" is defined effectively as mountain, moor, heath and down. In the Government's consultation paper published in February 1998, we said that,
"open does not necessarily mean 'unenclosed': some of the land may well be fenced, for example, to prevent grazing animals straying onto roads, or it may include walls to separate areas of grazing".
Indeed, much of our currently accessible open land is covered in drystone walls and can be regarded as enclosed land.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said, that does not mean that everything on downland would be treated as open country. The restrictions have to be read together with what appears to be mountain, moor, heath and down. Therefore, there would be substantial exceptions and restrictions on the downlands referred to, principally in relation to arable land. Enclosed arable land would be automatically excluded.
We thought that we had made clear that there is nothing in the Bill which restricts landowners from doing what they like with their land. Therefore, if they use the land for arable farming, even though otherwise it might fall within the definition of downland, it is excluded. If they wish to erect fences or walls around the field, they are entitled to do so but in certain circumstances that will still be open country. Providing a barrier, a wall, which may be there already or erected, will not exclude it from being access land.
Very little of the downland commons which range across the tops of the chalk ridges in south-east England remain common land, having succumbed to enclosure in the 18th and 19th centuries. Much, if not all, has been enclosed to permit the management of stock. Such enclosure need not affect the characteristics of downland, typified by rolling hills, steep slopes, dry valleys and short rich turf. Those areas will be identified as downland. But if they are used for purposes which lead to an exclusion or restriction, they will not be treated as access land.
It is also not axiomatic that moor and heath, for example, are unenclosed. Moorland has been enclosed or allotted by landowners at various times in the past 200 years. The changing economics of agriculture, and the poor productivity of the soil, has caused some of that land to resume the characteristics of unimproved moorland.
Therefore we do not accept the principle of the amendment. In all the categories of mountain, moor, heath and down there may be enclosed land which it is appropriate to treat as access land. Yes, countryside bodies will need to act reasonably when they apply their discretion. They will need to review the definitions and to have careful regard to the exclusions and restrictions in the other clauses of the Bill. But they will not be expected to exclude excepted land from maps unless they believe that to be not predominantly open country. Therefore they will identify mountain, moor, heath and down and then consider whether that land is being used for purposes which are inappropriate for treatment as access land and covered by the exceptions in the Bill.

957
The implication of the amendment is that all enclosed land should be excluded from the definition. That is a substantial undermining of the principle of the Bill and would cause grave difficulties in delivering the main purpose of the Bill
Viscount Bledisloe: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that full reply. I am sure that he knows me too well even to contemplate the idea that I might seek to wreck his Bill. For the reasons he gives, I accept that this is not the proper solution. However, I suggest that the debate in Committee on what is or is not downland will need resolving. I hope that he will give that point further thought and return to it at Third Reading. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 2, line 17, after ("down") insert ("(but excluding land habitually used for the making of hay, silage or haylage)").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving the amendment, I speak also to Amendments Nos. 6 and 13.
On many occasions in another place and in this House the Government have said often that they do not wish to include in the definition, land that is used for the making of hay and silage: but that point is not clear in the Bill. The amendment seeks to clarify the position so that what has been said by Ministers is on the face of the Bill.
I have sought to be helpful to the Government and have given them an alternative in Amendments Nos. 6 and 13. The amendment provides that,
"land habitually used for the making of hay, silage or haylage",
would be listed in Schedule 1 as excepted land. I have used the word "habitually" because it is used in government Amendment No. 17 on training gallops. Amendment No. 13 makes clear that this excepted land would not be available for access for the period 1st March to 30th September when hay and silage is being made, but would be available from the period October to February.
I hope that the Government and I are in tune. It is an aim we both wish to achieve. I have given the Government two alternatives. I beg to move.
Earl Peel: My Lords, Amendment No. 7 is in this group. With the leave of the House, I should like to speak to Amendment No. 8 separately. As the Bill stands, excepted land for access includes,
"Land on which the soil is being, or has at any time within the previous twelve months been, disturbed by any ploughing or drilling undertaken for the purposes of planting or sowing crops or trees".
In other words, the definition specifically covers cultivated land.
Like my noble friend Lord Caithness, I believe that to be inadequate, as it may not cover improved or semi-improved grassland that produces hay, silage or haylage—a new word. That is clearly an essential part of farmers' livelihoods.
958
I am sure that it will not be the express intention of the access authorities to include such land within access provisions. I take issue with the Minister's suggestion that the Conservatives have an inherent mistrust of the Countryside Agency. That was a little blunt. As my noble friend has already said, we are trying to define the areas in question in a way that will not lead to confusion.
In Committee, we had a considerable debate on the definition of "open country" under Clause 1, which covers land that,
"appears to the appropriate countryside body to consist wholly or predominantly of mountain, moor, heath or down".
Many of us felt that that description was too wide and could lead to difficulties and appeals during the mapping process. It is important to try to clarify as best we can the various land types. I agree that it is not always possible, but in this case it is possible and desirable. It would be inappropriate to allow the land that I am talking about to be included in the access provisions. Getting it right now will reduce the chances of confusion and appeals at the mapping stage. That alone would be very helpful.
I accept that Amendment No. 7 is not dissimilar to Amendment No. 3, tabled by my noble friend Lord Caithness. However, the definition in my amendment has been adopted previously in legislation, appearing in Sections 42 and 52 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, so it has a sound precedent.
Furthermore, on Report in another place, at column 809, Mr Meacher, the Minister there, expressed sympathy with the idea that such land should be excepted. If the Minister in another place feels that it should be excepted, I expect the Minister in this House to adhere to that.
The amendment is straightforward and would make it clear that any land that was not used for any reason other than rough grazing was excepted land. I hope that the Minister will agree.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Monro of Langholm: My Lords, I apologise to the House for not having been present in Committee. I would have supported the noble Earls, Lord Caithness and Lord Peel, at the time.
From a purely practical farming point of view, the Government are missing an important trick. They seem to forget that grassland or meadow land, particularly on hill farms, is often a link between the nearest access road and the open hill. During the summer growing months of June, July and August, it is very important that such land should not be disturbed if the farmer intends to take a crop of hay or silage from it.
The Government have said that cultivated land will be excepted, but hill grassland is not normally in any form of rotation. It would normally be broken perhaps only once every 10 years, or perhaps not at all if constant improvement was possible with lime and fertiliser. In those circumstances, it could not possibly come under the regular cultivation exception. In any

959
event, as most hill farmers know, it takes two or three years to establish a good sward from a directly re-seeded meadow before it is fit for hay or silage.
Another important reason for not disturbing the fields in the summer is to protect certain ground-nesting birds. When I was the Minister for Rural Affairs in Scotland, I visited SSSIs in the Outer Hebrides—that may be a long way from England, but the issues are the same—where the farmers received management agreements provided that they did not cut the hay until 1st August. That enabled corncrakes and other ground-nesting birds such as curlews to nest in the hay. The birds would be fledged by the end of July or the beginning of August. There was therefore a double reason why the ground should not be disturbed by people using it for access to open hills.
There are good reasons to support the amendments. Winter keep is essential for hill farms. If it can be taken only from a few meadows or grassland fields around the farm that are likely to be used by the general public for access to open hills, those fields should be kept clear of footsloggers during the hay period, from the end of May until well into August. That would enable the hay to grow to best advantage and would avoid disturbance of ground-nesting birds, which is often a problem on such land. We should give the amendments a fair wind, even if we have to come back to the issue at Third Reading.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, the amendments are important. To put the issue in a slightly different way, the House should realise that grass is an important crop. In many parts of the country, particularly in Wales, it is increasingly important, because the low price of cereals makes it worth growing grass wherever it grows best. It is grown not just permanently as rough grazing, but for intensive grazing. Sometimes it is even divided into compartments so that stock can feed on one part and then on another, or for hay, silage or haylage, as the amendments specify.
It would be disastrous to have people walking across such grass. It is important for people to realise that it has to be treated in the same way as a field of grain or root crops.
I do not know whether we have come up with the right definition. I suspect that my noble friend Lord Peel has come up with the best solution, because his amendment specifies everything that is not rough grazing. It embraces all the different ways that grass may be grown in potential access areas and does not limit it only to hay, silage and haylage. The Minister may have a view on that.
I hope that this matter is being considered because it is a problem that may lead to the type of confrontation in the countryside that we want to avoid. We need clarity in relation to the definitions.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, I support what the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, has just said. In one way or another for 40 years I have had connections with the Redesdale Experimental Husbandry Farm.
960
I am most concerned to realise from this debate that the Government may be considering the possibility of making subject to access what is called "in-bye land"; at least, it is called that at Redesdale and in Northumberland.
The reason for my anxiety concerns not only the absolute necessity of having a hay supply, but also lambing. Over the past 30 or 40 years the practice of lambing on hills has been less and less popular. Sheep are now brought into in-bye fields for lambing or into lambing sheds. Building lambing sheds represents an extremely expensive capital project which many hill farmers would not be able to undertake. It is absolutely essential that fields should he available for lambing and that they should be undisturbed. I believe that this is another important argument for accepting the amendment tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Peel, rather than the others.
Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, without entering into an argument about the merits of a particular amendment, perhaps I may express sympathy with the approach. It is essential that we encourage farmers to grow rather than buy in feed. The BSE tragedy provides evidence of that desirability. If they are to be encouraged to grow feed, I believe that consideration must be given to this approach. It would, of course, be helpful to ground-nesting birds as well. I hope that my noble friend will be able to give careful thought to this matter.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, we on these Benches are concerned that the land used for growing grass crops does not have a closer definition. Indeed, on behalf of the Government in Committee the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said that he recognised the concern of noble Lords. He acknowledged that access to fields could cause damage and went on to say that,
"farmers will have every opportunity to see that it"—
that is, the land used for grass crops—
"is excluded from the maps".—[Official Report, 27/9/00; col 919.]
Those of us who are concerned about smaller upland farmers believe that at the moment the boot seems to be on the wrong foot. Farmers who need land to grow grass crops for their animals should be able to expect that land to be excluded. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, I am not sure that any of the amendments in this group quite meet what we are seeking to achieve. I urge the Government to give one last thought to this matter and to return with their own amendment at the next stage.
Viscount Brookeborough: My Lords, first, I apologise for not having been here for the earlier stages of the Bill. I support these amendments. At my home, groups of people ask permission to walk across our land and on many occasions we permit them to do so. However, people must be kept away from standing crops of hay which are to be cut for silage. Many people wonder what happens to the crops if they are walked on. Quite simply, they end up on the ground and the machinery cannot pick them up.

961
Although normally seen in grain, an indication of the damage that is done can be seen when flying into London airport in the summer over areas where standing grain grows in fields close to houses. It is possible to see from the air the amount of damage that is caused, even in areas where people do not necessarily have a right of access. One can see the damage caused to great swathes of crops which have been tracked through, let alone the damage created by crop circles. If one flies over the affected area a few weeks later after the crops have been cut, it is possible to see areas which have been left uncut purely because people have wandered through them. Therefore, I support the amendments.
Lord Jopling: My Lords, my mind was working on exactly the same point as that made by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, when he talked about the Redesdale Farm in Northumberland, with which I am familiar. I remember visiting that particular experimental farm when I was a Minister in MAFF a good many years ago.
I remember talking to people during that visit about hill farming in the north of England. It was put to me in strong terms that one of the greatest inhibitions for a hill farmer is his capacity to over-winter his sheep. I was told that there was always plenty of keep in the summer on the hill and moor but that it was difficult to conserve enough material, whether hay, silage or whatever, for keeping the stock over winter.
If the Minister wants an example of that I invite him to ask for advice about the demand from hill farmers for their sheep to go to the lowlands during the winter and to eat sugar beet tops. After the sugar beet has been removed, the tops keep sheep effectively for considerable lengths of time during the depths of winter. Many farmers cannot keep enough sheep to provide them with a reasonable livelihood during the winter because of the difficulty of providing enough winter keep for them from their farms. Therefore, I believe that these amendments are exceptionally important and I hope that the Government will take them seriously.
I want to make another point which I believe has been half made already. However, I should like to express it a little more fully. One thinks of lush meadows in the lowlands which are about to be cut for hay or silage, but on the uplands the crops are very much thinner. Often, people who visit the countryside do not know as much about the ways of the countryside as many of us would wish. I believe that in many upland areas a rambler could mistake a hay or silage crop for grazing land. It is possible that he would not realise that grass was being grown for conservation. Therefore, unless farmers can fall back on an Act of Parliament which states that land is excepted from the right to roam, it will be extremely difficult for them to keep the public off land where grass is being grown for conservation.
962
I plead with the Minister to take on board the points that have been made on all sides of the House. I hope that he will either accept the amendments or return at Third Reading with other amendments to deal with this practical problem for upland farmers.
Lord Rotherwick: My Lords, I rise to speak briefly as a landowner and manager who no longer makes silage, hay or haylage. I agree entirely with what the noble Lord on my right and the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, said. However, a point which no one has yet raised is that of safety. I speak as someone who has grown such crops in the past. They are harvested with fast-moving, sharp-cutting, knived machines. The crops can be three feet high and it is not easy to see if anything is lying in them. Surely it cannot be right to allow people to have access to crops when they are being cut by dangerous machinery.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, I wish to make a tiny point. These fields contain food. They are not places in which to walk; they are growing food for sheep. It would be just the same if people had the right to roam in a restaurant and walk about on the tables all over the dishes.
4 p.m.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I am not sure how to follow the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Strange. I understand what is meant. It is a graphic example of the problem that we face.
The Minister will be well aware of the feeling around the House this afternoon on the practicalities of the Bill's implications if we do not look at this issue in all seriousness. We refer particularly to the hill farmers who are struggling to survive at the moment. If these additional restrictions are not made, I fear that it will become worse and more difficult for them. I hope that the Minister will consider these matters very seriously.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, we gave assurances in Committee and assurances were given in another place that the criteria adopted by the countryside bodies for the mapping of open country will exclude improved agricultural land from maps of open country. We had said repeatedly that this land will fall outside the criteria which the countryside bodies are adopting for mapping open country. We wrote recently to the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, to explain that the Countryside Agency has already issued a paper for consideration by the National Countryside Access Forum setting out its initial views on the criteria it should adopt in mapping open country. If that paper was not copied to any noble Lords who have taken part in this debate, I should be happy to do that.
The paper focuses on naturally occurring vegetation as an indicator of its status as mountain, moor, heath or down. The proposed criteria exclude land that

963
comprises improved or semi-improved pastures, arable land, land used for rotational cropping and set aside.
Viscount Brookeborough: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving way. What is the definition of "improved"? We have land at home that we wanted to plant out with trees. We obtained one level of grant for improved land and one level for unimproved land as defined by the Ministry of Agriculture. For improved land there has to be a certain percentage of certain types of grasses. There is very good unimproved land—by the definition the Ministry gives—which is used for cropping, grass, haylage and silage. Therefore, much of it would fall outside what the Minister just said.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I had better pursue my argument which has to be seen as a whole rather than intervene in negotiations between the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, and the Northern Ireland Department of Agriculture. Clearly, whatever definitions are used for grant purposes, they are not the same as the definitions that the Countryside Agency will draw up for the purposes of this Act.
The criteria are not complete. They will be developed and refined and subject to consultation. They will include a working methodology as part of the pilot mapping exercise in respect of which a contract will be let later this year.
The Government endorse the selection of criteria that excludes these types of land. We can assure all who have taken part in this debate that the purposes for which these amendments have been tabled will be achieved by the Bill, and plans are being put in place for their implementation.
I deal with the amendments in turn. Amendment No. 3 would exclude from the definition of "open country" land which is habitually—and the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, is right in taking the word "habitually" from Amendment Nos. 14 and 17—used for the making of hay, silage or haylage. It is drafted more narrowly than Amendment No. 58 which is on a similar subject but which is to be taken separately. It deals particularly with grassland capable of producing a commercial crop. The use of the word "habitually" should avoid the unnecessary exclusion of extensive areas of downland from maps of open country. It would still leave considerable doubt about the status of downland from which a hay cut is often taken. Much traditional downland is capable of providing a crop of hay in a good year. We do not believe that the potential for generating a crop of hay on downland makes it inconsistent with rights of access.
There may be a need at times to protect grass from trampling, and that point has been made very effectively this afternoon. I want to give three answers to that. First, it can often be achieved by encouraging the use of paths. Secondly, where restrictions are required, entitled persons will be able to close the land or restrict access using their discretion under Clause 21 which is enhanced by our Amendment No. 117 or, thirdly, to apply to the relevant authority for a
964
direction for the purposes of land management. I say that in response to the noble Lord, Lord Monro of Langholm.
Where a hay crop is regularly taken from the land, the relevant authority can make a direction that has effect for the appropriate period in every spring or early summer. I accept that if the Bill were to cover Scotland, the spring might go through to later than early summer.
How would the farmer demonstrate to the satisfaction of the countryside bodies or the Secretary of State his habitual practice of taking a cut of hay from the land? An amendment along these lines would be very difficult to apply in practice.
Amendments Nos. 6 and 13 represent an alternative approach in that they add provisions similar to Amendment No. 3 to the categories of excepted land in Schedule 1. Amendment No. 7 would simply exclude agricultural land rather than rough grazing.
Both the noble Earl, Lord Peel, and the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, talked about the need for clarity. I agree with them. The noble Earl, Lord Peel, spoke about the need for clarity in the appeals process. The need for clarity goes further than that. We explained in detail in Committee that it would be unhelpful to introduce into Schedule 1 any exception of land that was not readily identifiable by the public and by farmers. No walker could be expected to identify land that was habitually used for the making of hay, silage or haylage unless he were accompanied by a team of agricultural consultants; nor would a walker be any better informed about whether land was rough grazing.
It is much more sensible that land inappropriate to the right of access is excluded at the mapping stage. The process set out in the Bill, with the assurances that I have given, will achieve this objective.
The noble Earl, Lord Peel, and others referred to the definition used in earlier legislation of exclusion of agricultural land by reason only that it affords rough grazing for livestock. That test has not worked very often. It has rarely, if ever, been necessary to use the test for exactly the reason that applies in this case because under the earlier legislation improved and semi-improved pastures were excluded from agreement land in the first place. In this legislation we have always made it clear that mountain, moor, heath and down are intended only to include agricultural land used for rough grazing. It is in the mapping process that this land will be identified and other agricultural land excluded.
The noble Lords, Lord Northbourne and Lord Jopling, mentioned in-bye land referring in particular to Northumberland. It is unlikely that much in-bye land would be mapped as open country as it is very rarely mountain, moor, heath or down. One must remember that that is the overriding control on what is included in mapping. Some land of this kind has long since ceased to be managed and has resumed characteristics typically of moorland, and surely that should be mapped as open country if it is so.

965
The noble Lord, Lord Monro of Langholm, talked about improved and reseeded fields. These lands are unlikely to be mapped as open country as they will not be mountain, moor, heath or down. The question of exception of this land in Schedule 1 does not arise.
I recognise that there is strong feeling around the House. We believe that the Bill as drafted provides the protection sought for hill farmers. But in the light of the strength of feeling which has been expressed, I am certainly willing to explore what more can be done on the face of the Bill to ensure that "open country" can be better defined so as to exclude land regularly used for the making of hay or silage.
If we can conclude a form of words which is satisfactory and which does not exclude large areas of downland which really should be covered by the Bill—and I can give no commitment on that point—then we shall consider whether, under those circumstances, we could table an amendment to that effect at Third Reading.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this wide-ranging but at the same time specific debate because it has focused on a major lacuna within the Bill. There has been support for the idea behind the amendment and the idea of the noble Earl, Lord Peel, from the Labour and Liberal Democrat Benches, from the Cross Benches, and from my own side. For that, I am extremely grateful.
I was very concerned by a number of the Minister's comments. I wish to read them carefully in Hansard. It sounded to me as though the Government were going back on what they had said both in another place and in this House. The Minister's words about land on which hay could be made were, in my view, a distinct retreat from the Government's earlier position. That will be of immense concern to every upland farmer who is following this issue with great anxiety.
The Minister made a rather dismissive remark that definitions are different in Northern Ireland. That was an insult to—
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I did not say that. I said that definitions of improved and semi-improved land used for the purposes of grant might be different. There were no aspersions cast on or praise given to Northern Ireland.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, for that clarification. It only goes to prove that more work is to be put on the owners and occupiers. One set of definitions is used for the purposes of grant and a completely different set will be dreamt up by the Government in relation to access. Life will be made more difficult for those in the countryside.
I was concerned about 99 per cent of what the noble Lord said. However, he produced a little pearl to hang on to at the end when he said that he would take away the matter for consideration. It would therefore be
966
wrong to test the opinion of the House on this amendment or, indeed, on subsequent Amendments Nos. 6 and 13. I hope that the noble Lord is serious and that he will require his officials to come up with an appropriate amendment. Clearly, what is on the face of the Bill at the moment is totally unsatisfactory and represents a danger to wildlife as well as to the prosperity of the farming community. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 2, leave out lines 19 to 21 and insert—
("(3) In this Part "registered common land" means—

(a) land which is registered as common land under the Commons Registration Act 1965 (in this section referred to as "the 1965 Act") and whose registration under that Act has become final, or

(b) subject to subsection (4), land which fell within paragraph (a) on the day on which this Act is passed or at any time after that day but has subsequently ceased to be registered as common land under the 1965 Act on the register of common land in which it was included being amended by reason of the land having ceased to be common land within the meaning of that Act.

(4) Subsection (3)(b) does not apply where—

(a) the amendment of the register of common land was made in pursuance of an application made before the day on which this Act is passed, or

(b) the land ceased to be common land by reason of the exercise of—

(i) any power of compulsory purchase, of appropriation or of sale which is conferred by an enactment,

(ii) any power so conferred under which land may be made common land within the meaning of the 1965 Act in substitution for other land.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 150, which is consequential.
Part I provides for a right of access to all common land registered as such under the Commons Registration Act 1965. The amendment will ensure that access to common land under this Bill is preserved where it is deregistered after the Bill is passed. Similar amendments were moved in Committee by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer. This meets her concerns.
We recognise that those concerns are real, albeit that 85 per cent of common land is likely to fall under one of the other classifications. Clearly, between Royal Assent and the time at which the rights come into effect, we do not wish to see some of the common land being deregistered. The amendment will prevent that leakage. I beg to move.
4.15 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I am grateful to the Government for coming back with this amendment and for taking the opportunity to strengthen the position of commons and, later in the Bill, of village greens. I am glad that those areas have

967
not been left unprotected, small though they may be. We believe that they are very important and, as I said, I thank the Government.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 2, line 21, at end insert—
("(3) It shall be the duty of the appropriate countryside body to set out clear definitions of moor, heath and down.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, your Lordships will have noticed that I moved the same amendment in Committee. I am emboldened to table it again in view of what the Minister said in Committee on 27th September at cols 896 and 897. He said that he would need to consider the anxieties expressed over the previous 31 minutes on the issue. Sadly, that reconsideration, which I hope he undertook, has not taken the form of a government amendment. I am therefore proposing the amendment again.
It is a major defect that there is no instruction on the face of the Bi11 for one body to come forward with a clear definition of "moor, heath and down". As we discussed in Committee, it is absolutely critical that we should know what the definitions are. Those definitions must be arrived at by a central body so that they are national definitions. They should not be drawn up by individual countryside bodies which, first, do not have the expertise to make the definitions and, secondly, will come up with a variety of different definitions.
As I said in Committee, the definitions of "down" and "heath" vary considerably in the Oxford English Dictionary and I shall not bore your Lordships by repeating them. However, because of the very wide range of definitions, it is extremely important to have them made by one body and clear on the face of the Bill. I beg to move.
Viscount Bledisloe: My Lords, the necessity for an amendment to this effect, although perhaps not the amendment itself, was demonstrated by the reply of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, to the debate on grassland.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, appears to contemplate that the Countryside Agency will lay down certain definitions or instructions which will provide, for example, that improved grassland does not count as down. But under the Bill as it now stands the Countryside Agency does not have that power.
In the last resort, what is or is not "down" is a question of law and would be for the courts to decide. Neither the Government nor the Countryside Agency could say, "We have decided that improved grassland is not down and therefore we will not map it" if someone comes along and demonstrates that down does include certain areas where grassland is improved and therefore has to be mapped.
If the system intended is the highly desirable system which the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, explained on Amendment No. 3, then he needs on the face of the Bill something which says that the countryside body shall define what is moor, heath or down and for that to be
968
conclusive. If the Countryside Agency is meant to be the judge of that, that is very good but the Bill does not allow it because anyone dissatisfied with its decision would be able to mount a challenge in court and say that what is "down" is a matter of law and that something is not being mapped which is down or that something has been mapped which is not down.
I hope that the noble Lord will take away that point and think about it. Clearly, the system which the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, outlined is a very sensible way of resolving this question but that is not what the Bill provides at present.
Earl Peel: My Lords, there were many occasions in Committee when matters were referred back to the access authorities by the Minister, in the hope that everything would be all right. In many cases that will be so, but as the Bill is all about access on moor, heath and down, in the absence of clear definitions people will be unclear. That applies not just to the access authorities but to those whose access land will be incorporated in the Bill.
We constantly return to the point about reducing conflict, appeals and litigation. If we do not get certain things right at the beginning, those characteristics will raise their ugly heads time and again. I hope that the Government will listen seriously to my noble friend, whose amendment is fundamental.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, clarification is required because it is not right to leave the matter. I am anxious that the Government place a duty on the countryside body to make clear definitions, at least as a starting point. In the absence of such definitions, there will be total confusion. It has been suggested in earlier debates that we are misplaying some of our apprehensions, but if the Minister will have definitions clearly set down, that would relieve a lot of pressure and dispel the apprehension felt by many noble Lords.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, Amendment No. 5 would require the countryside bodies to set clear definitions of moor, heath and down. Some comments implied that those definitions should appear in the Bill, which would not be practicable or sensible.
The amendment's aim of ensuring sensible definition criteria for identifying moor, heath and down is sound. The Countryside Agency and the Countryside Council for Wales are engaged in drafting such material. The National Countryside Access Forum, which includes landowning and user groups, has already discussed the agency's paper setting out draft criteria—a copy of which is in the Library. The agency needs to consult more widely before reaching a firm and final view.
The requirement on the Countryside Agency will be to identify and map downland, for example—then as a separate exercise, to consider what is excepted because of its use or the other qualifications in the Bill. Much of the discussion has confused those two processes. Clarity of definition will not necessarily

969
relate to a particular piece of land, so would not overcome all the problems and complexities of finally defining what is access land and what is not.
We do not believe that it is necessary or desirable to set rigid definitions in the legislation. We need to leave the access agencies some flexibility in carrying out their tasks. The precise parameters for moor, heath and down require careful consideration. The current proposals relating to England—I believe that a similar process will be observed in Wales—will need to be reviewed in light of the pilot mapping exercises by the Countryside Agency. The Bill already requires the countryside bodies to determine whether land is open country by reference to various categories.
The mapping process, accompanied by extensive consultation and a right of appeal for those interested in the land, provides sufficient safeguards for ensuring that work is done in a sensible, consistent and equitable way. The amendment would constrain that exercise and is not useful, despite our shared objective of achieving clarity.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, perhaps he will clarify the following point. If definitions are to be delayed and the Countryside Agency will decide them, does the same apply to many of the other matters? We may be passing a Bill when we do not know what will happen at the end because definitions will not have been made.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, those matters would not be defined if we accepted the amendment, because the noble Earl is only asking for a requirement that the agencies define moor, heath and down. The criteria are in the consultative paper to which I have referred but neither the Bill nor the amendment places the definitions on the face of the legislation. Such a requirement might constrain the way in which the countryside agencies undertake their work of mapping. Definitions would not resolve problems such as those affecting hayland and haylage—which relate more to exclusions.
From the debate and the noble Baroness's last intervention, it seems that people are looking for more than the amendment would deliver. The process in which the countryside agencies are engaged will produce a degree of clarity, but it is not sensible to define how to achieve it. I hope that the noble Earl will not pursue his amendment.
Viscount Bledisloe: My Lords, will the Minister answer my point that if it is not for the Countryside Agency to define "downland", under what power in the Bill will the agency do as the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said and exclude improved grassland?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the noble Viscount is confusing two separate processes. The identification of downland will be based on the criteria in the agency's draft paper and be subject to the results of consultation. Then there is the process of determining whether certain activities or the nature of what would
970
otherwise be downland—for example, arable land—should be excluded. That consideration should be treated separately and be dealt with by the agencies in accordance with the rules in the appropriate schedule.
Viscount Bledisloe: My Lords, the noble, Lord, Lord McIntosh—
Noble Lords: No!
Lord Bach: My Lords, we must remember that we are at Report stage, not in Committee.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I agree with the Minister that it would be totally wrong to seek a definition on the face of the Bill. I take his point that there are two distinct processes for the Countryside Agency—identifying and mapping the land, then considering exceptions from the general provision. However, unless there are clear definitions, how will the land be identified and mapped in the first place? There is nothing on the face of the Bill to say that that work must be done by one body or that it has been done. If what the Minister says is correct—I have no reason to doubt it as I have seen the effect of what he said—surely that should go on the face of the Bill. It will lead to greater clarity for all who will suffer under or receive the benefit of this Bill.
However, I am concerned about one point made by the Minister. He said that we must not be too clear in our definitions because the Countryside Agency must have flexibility to do this or that or to change its mind. We must bear in mind that, on 9th October 2000 at col. 25 of Hansard, the Minister said that there will be no compensation paid to landowners and occupiers because everyone will be treated equally. The words now used by the Minister put that statement in doubt. If there is to be flexibility, some people may be treated differently from others.
For that reason it is important to have a clear definition. I agree that it should not be on the face of the Bill. However, I believe that it should be clear on the face of the Bill that there is an instruction to one body to make clear definitions for the whole country. Therefore I intend to test the opinion of the House.
4.31 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 5) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 127; Not-Contents, 159.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Anelay of St Johns, B.

Bledisloe, V.

Arran, E.

Boardman, L.

Ashcroft, L.

Bowness, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Attlee, E.

Brookeborough, V.

Belstead, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L

Blaker, L.

Burnham, L.

Blatch, B.

Buxton of Alsa, L.

971

Byford, B.

Lyell, L.

Caithness, E. [Teller]

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Carnarvon, E.

Mancroft, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Mar, C.

Carr of Hadley, L

Marlesford, L.

Carrington, L.

Marsh, L.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Coe, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Courtown, E.

Monro of Langholm, L.

Craig of Radley, L.

Monson, L.

Cranborne, V.

Montrose, D.

Crickhowell, L.

Moran, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Denham, L.

Noakes, B.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Northbourne, L.

Dundee, E.

Northbrook, L.

Eames, L.

Northesk, E.

Eden of Winton, L.

Norton of Louth, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Elton, L.

Palmer, L.

Erroll, E.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Feldman, L.

Peel, E.

Flather, B.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Prior, L.

Freeman, L.

Rawlings, B.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Reay, L.

Geddes, L.

Rees, L.

Gibson, L.

Renton, L.

Glentoran, L.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Rotherwick, L.

Griffiths of Fforestfach, L.

Ryder of Wensum, L.

Seccombe, B.

Hanham, B.

Selsdon, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Sharples, B.

Henley, L. [Teller]

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Higgins, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Hogg, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Hooper, B.

Slim, V.

Howe, E.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L

Howell of Guildford, L.

Strange, B.

Hunt of Wirral, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Hurd of Westwell, L.

Swinfen, L.

Hylton, L.

Taylor of Warwick, L.

Jopling, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Kelvedon, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Kimball, L.

Trumpington, B.

Knight of Collingtree, B.

Vivian, L.

Laing of Dunphail, L.

Waddington, L.

Lamont of Lerwick, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Walpole, L.

Lawson of Blaby, L.

Warnock, B.

Liverpool, E.

Young, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Blease, L.

Addington, L.

Borrie, L.

Ahmed, L.

Bragg, L.

Alderdice, L.

Brennan, L.

Alli, L.

Brett, L.

Amos, B.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Andrews, B.

Brookman, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Burlison, L.

Avebury, L.

Carter, L. [Teller]

Bach, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Barker, B.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Clement-Jones, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Billingham, B.

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

Blackburn, Bp.

Crawley, B.

Blackstone, B.

Currie of Marylebone, L.

972

Davies of Coity, L.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Dholakia, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Dixon, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Donoughue, L.

McNally, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Maddock, B.

Dubs, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Elder, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Ezra, L.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Molloy, L.

Falkland, V.

Morgan, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Newby, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Nicol, B.

Filkin, L.

Northover, B.

Fitt, L.

Parekh, L.

Fyfe of Fairfield, L.

Patel of Blackburn, L.

Gale, B.

Peston, L.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Goldsmith, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Goodhart, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Goudie, B.

Rea, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Redesdale, L.

Grabiner, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Rennard, L.

Greaves, L.

Richard, L.

Greengross, B.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Grenfell, L.

Roper, L.

Hamwee, B.

Sainsbury of Turville, L

Hardy of Wath, L.

Sandberg, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Sawyer, L.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Harris of Richmond, B.

Serota, B.

Harrison, L.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Haskel, L.

Shepherd, L.

Hayman, B.

Shore of Stepney, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Shutt of Greetland, L.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Simon, V.

Howie of Troon, L.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Hoyle, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Taverne, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord Chancellor)

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Islwyn, L.

Thornton, B.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Tomlinson, L.

Jay of Paddington, B. (Lord Privy Seal)

Tordoff, L.

Turnberg, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Judd, L.

Varley, L.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Walmsley, B.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Watson of Richmond, L.

Levy, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Lipsey, L.

Whitaker, B.

Lockwood, B.

Whitty, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Wigoder, L.

Longford, E.

Wilkins, B.

Ludford, B.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller]

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

Young of Old Scone, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.43 p.m.
Schedule 1 [Excepted land for purposes of Part I]:
[Amendments Nos. 6 and 7 not moved.]
Earl Peel Earl Peel moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 63, line 8, at end insert—
(". Woodland or forest which is fenced against access land which adjoins or surrounds it.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, the Bill provides for a right of access to mountain, moor, heath, down and registered common land but it does not provide a right of access to woodland. The Government were strongly advised by the Forestry Commission, the Countryside Agency, English Nature and the Countryside Council for Wales to adopt a voluntary approach in improving public access to woodland. That is reflected in the provision for voluntary dedication of land to access in Clause 16.
However, there appears to be a lack of clarity, which must be overcome, about the treatment of woodland which either regenerates naturally on access land or is planted on such land before or after the new right comes into effect. As in general the Bill does not provide a right of access to woodland, it should follow that areas of woodland within parcels of access land should not be mapped as access land and that access land which subsequently becomes woodland— whether by natural regeneration or planting—should cease to be access land. It is not clear whether or not that will be the case. The best way to make the position of woodland clear would be to make it excepted land under Schedule I and the amendment is designed to achieve just that.
On Report, the Minister was asked whether the right of access would extend to common land which was wooded. He said:
"If it is woodland, which is not part of the increased right of access under the Bill unless it is voluntarily dedicated by the landowner, I imagine that the Bill would not give general access to it". —[Official Report, Commons, 13/6/00; col 807.]
If that is the case with common land covered by woodland, I suggest that it must be the same for any access land covered by woodland.
I accept that it would be impractical and undesirable to exclude access from small clumps of trees which have perhaps regenerated or been planted—that is why the amendment deals only with fenced woodland—but appropriate planting and natural regeneration should be encouraged. Indeed, English Nature was recently active in the North of England, involving itself with owners and occupiers to try to encourage such woodland on the edge or moorland. It has been most successful in that.
Furthermore, it should be realised that woodland is important for certain biodiversity action plan species, in particular the black grouse. Again, English Nature has been actively involved in trying to enhance that species through proper planting schemes. It should also be remembered that many woodland areas have been planted for opportunities for shooting. It is true to say that a large percentage of woodland has been developed with that specifically in mind.
I am concerned because any measures in the Bill which discourage small appropriate woodland planting would be a great shame. I suspect that if access provisions in the Bill were allowed to include
974
woodland, much of it would cease. Therefore, I ask the Minister to consider the amendment. I hope that he agrees that it would be inappropriate for woodland on access areas to be included; in other words, the land should be exempt. I beg to move.
4.45 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Peel, is right in saying that woodland is not added to mountain, moor, heath or down. In general terms, it is not covered by the Bill. However, it is possible that maps of open country could include small areas of woodland if they are part of a larger area of mountain, moor, heath or down. As the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, said in Committee, it would be a matter of discretion for the countryside body whether to exclude such pockets of woodland. My noble friend also pointed out that it is most unlikely that a fenced plantation would be mapped as part of open country. However, it would not be appropriate to except access from a naturally occurring woodland simply because, for example, it is fenced to exclude livestock.
The noble Earl, Lord Peel, made a valid point about biodiversity but the conservation provisions in the Bill should be introduced in order to protect biodiversity and conservation. Naturally occurring woodland is increasingly fenced to exclude livestock but that is not the same issue. There is no intention to extend the right of access to woodland by stealth. One is concerned only with access to mountain, moor, heath, down—some of which may be encroached upon by small areas of woodland—and common land, which historically is often woodland. The question is whether the woodland occurs naturally, as one would expect on common land.
I am not convinced that this amendment with its emphasis on fencing is appropriate in terms of its effect or necessity or the definition of the threshold between land which is open country and land which is not. I hope that the noble Earl will not press his amendment.
Earl Peel: My Lords, I received the answer that I expected. Perhaps I should take comfort from the fact that there will be flexibility. I understand the point which the Minister makes. Perhaps the noble Lord's most telling point is that there is no intent to extend access by stealth. I never thought that there was such an intent, but it is nice to know that that is the position. Having heard the Minister's response, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Viscount Bledisloe Viscount Bledisloe moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 63, line 9, at end insert ("which curtilage shall be deemed to include all land within 30 metres of a building which is a dwelling-house").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this amendment turns to a different topic. Schedule 1 excludes from access land buildings and their curtilage. One often has a dwelling-house which has a garden or curtilage on one or more sides, but is not protected on its remaining sides and open land comes

975
virtually to the door. In Committee a number of noble Lords expressed serious concern that it would be very disturbing for people who lived in such a house if, particularly at night, those who exercised the right of access came right up to the house. The aim of the amendment is to provide a minimum area of protection on all sides of the dwelling-house without detracting from the size of the curtilage.
My amendment proposes that the area of protection should be 30 metres, whereas Amendment No. 11 in the name of the Government suggests 20 metres. I assume that, in his customary spirit of compromise, the Minister will suggest 25 metres. However, I shall weaken my bargaining position by admitting that if the noble Lord does not do so I shall not divide the House for the sake of 10 metres. I beg to move.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, am I correct in believing that if the Minister speaks to his amendment I cannot make a contribution?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, to assist the House, if any noble Lord wishes to speak to a group of amendments he should do so. I want to clarify the position. I believe that if the Minister moves a lead amendment other noble Lords may speak thereafter. I understand that the noble Baroness wishes to speak now.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, if I wait for the Minister to speak, I cannot speak myself. I understand that I can speak. I am trying to be terribly correct. I rise to support the amendment moved by the noble Viscount. As the noble Viscount will not persuade the Minister to accept 30 metres, I understand that he is content to accept 20 metres. In rising to support the amendment, I thank the Minister for tabling a government amendment which deals with a problem which was debated earlier.
I should like to clarify two matters. Amendment No. 11 in the name of the Government seeks to insert paragraph 2A, presumably after paragraph 2. The provision as it now stands deals with,
"Land covered by buildings or the curtilage of such land".
Presumably, the Government intend to include land within 20 metres of a dwelling. I seek clarification on the difference between paragraph 2A and what stands in the Bill now.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, can we not hear the Minister speak to his amendment before we speak?
Lord Williamson of Horton: My Lords, I intervene briefly. We have a good number of amendments to deal with and I do not want the Minister to fail to complete his century before close of play. This amendment is a good example of where the Bill is lacking in certainty, and clarification can be achieved. That has been the theme of the whole debate at Report stage so far, and no doubt we shall return to it en masse in relation to other issues. The Bill as it stands makes no specific reference to dwelling-houses in the
976
excepted land, although it refers to tramways, golf courses and what have you. Obviously, it is important that those who live in the country are clear as co where access land around their dwelling-houses begins and ends. The government amendment before us is excellent. I would have preferred 30 metres, but I am content with 20 metres.
As to the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, I am content with the way in which the Government have presented the amendment with a specific heading to deal with dwelling-houses, leaving other buildings to be dealt with separately. That is an advantage from the point of view of presentation. In any event, I believe that, except for those people who do crosswords, the great majority of the population do not know what a curtilage is. The government amendment is clear and meets the point, and I welcome it.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, as the noble Viscount, the noble Baroness and the noble Lord have all indicated that, with varying degrees of reluctance, they accept 20 metres, I shall not put the case for 20 versus 30. The government amendment responds to indications at previous stages of the Bill that there was a problem about the security of people who live in isolated cottages and other places in the countryside. Although I was reluctant at the previous stage to concede the point on the basis that most people live fairly dose to a right of way, I recognise that isolated dwellings give rise to particular problems. Therefore, we believe that it is sensible to place a 20-metre circle around such houses. We have confined the amendment to dwellings. The question as to whether it should be extended to other buildings arises on the next group of amendments. In case the noble Earl is in any doubt, I shall resist it.
I believe that I have answered the point raised by the noble Baroness. The amendment relates specifically to dwellings, whereas some of the other provisions relate to all buildings. I shall move my amendment at the appropriate point, and I hope that the noble Viscount will withdraw his amendment.
Viscount Bledisloe: I am amazed that the Minister has not given me 25 metres. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Earl Peel Earl Peel moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 63, line 9, at end insert ("and in any case the curtilage shall extend for not less than 20 metres from any such building in every direction").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for a clear indication as to his reaction to my amendment. I welcome the fact that the Government have taken on board the points raised in Committee. We now have protection for dwelling-houses based on 20 metres, which is probably quite adequate. I acknowledge that in Schedule 1 access to all land covered by buildings, or the curtilage of such land,

977
would also be prohibited. I accept that those two separate issues are important and go some way to address the problem.
However, there are many cases in which buildings have no curtilage and some dwelling-houses back directly on to access land. Particularly at night, very often those dwelling-houses cannot be distinguished from a barn due to planning restrictions or design standards. In a number of cases at night people will be unable to distinguish between a dwelling-house and a barn. That is why my amendment goes further and suggests that there should be a 20-metre restriction around all buildings.
There is also a security issue. Many barns and buildings contain valuable machinery—all kinds of agricultural hardware—and stock. It will give people a greater sense of security to know that those people exercising their rights under the Bill will keep 20 metres away from all such buildings. Therefore, it is not an unreasonable amendment.
I have another point; namely, with the additional access that the Bill will provide, the liability to owners and occupiers of trespass on land which is not access land will be enhanced. On the back of that I suggest that there will be increased costs. Although it is somewhat detached from the points that I am making, perhaps we should bear that factor in mind. My amendment will allow for an exclusion area of 20 metres around all buildings. That will give people the additional amount of security which they deserve. I beg to move.
5 p.m.
Lord Greaves: My Lords, I intended to speak on the previous amendment. I failed to do so before it was withdrawn. But the principles are the same on this amendment.
I speak as someone who lives in a house where people can walk along the back wall of what is part of the house. So I do not get terribly worked up about these matters. I understand that in isolated separate dwellings in remote places people may become concerned. That is not a major problem, since the number of dwellings which will be affected is actually quite small. Clearly, some will be affected.
I have closely scrutinised the 2½-inch maps of the Pennines and the North Yorkshire moors. I can find very few dwellings or buildings which would be affected. As was discussed in Committee, in practice most of the buildings have rights of way quite near them and often going directly past them. So there is no major problem in gaining access to the access land.
There are two problems with the amendment. First, the noble Earl, Lord Peel, said that people will find it difficult to distinguish between what is and what is not a dwelling, particularly if a dwelling is actually a building in which people are living as opposed to a cottage or indeed an old farmhouse in which people used to live. Some thought is needed on how that matter can be dealt with. However, I would not
978
support the noble Earl's proposal that all buildings should be included. That would be unnecessarily restrictive.
There is a second, more difficult problem. How will people know where the boundary of access land lies if there is a circle 20 metres around dwelling-houses, particularly if it is not clear whether or not the buildings are lived in? The Bill rightly accepts the principle that in many cases the boundaries will be drawn along obvious features on the ground—banks, walls or natural features—rather than the precise features at the edge of what may be moor, heath and so on, as opposed to kinds of pasture. That principle is rightly established in the Bill. It is necessary for people to understand where the boundary lies of the land to which they are entitled to have access.
What is now proposed is an entirely arbitrary boundary. It will almost never be the case that a boundary 20 metres around a dwelling will coincide with any natural features. That may encourage people to erect fences where fences do not exist at the moment. That may be detrimental to the local landscape. It may be that they are not able to do that because of the constraints in the area. I am trying to find out how the boundary of access land will be established when that access land is an arbitrary 20-metre circle around a building which does not coincide with anything on the ground.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, the amendment deals with a small but important point. I base what I say on my own experience.
On a hill farm one often has a dwelling-house and then farm buildings 50 to 100 yards up the hill. If the farm buildings contain cattle there will probably be straw storage as part of the building. There will also be straw within the building. The great fear for those in the dwelling-house is that the people walking about at night with torches might set fire to that building. A long time ago that happened on three successive occasions on land for which I was responsible. If it was known that people had to stay outside a boundary, and one saw torches within less than 100 yards of one's house, one would know whether those people were walking lawfully across the land or whether they were trying to get into the building. It would be a great advantage if Amendment No. 10 were accepted. It is a small point. But it would simplify the whole arrangement in the minds of the public, as the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, said.
Viscount Brookeborough: My Lords, I wish to make two points in support of the amendment. First, of what benefit will it be to those people who want to enjoy the countryside to be able to walk around the buildings? They are there to enjoy the countryside. That is why we are giving them access to it.
Secondly, before the Minister tells me to go back to Northern Ireland—that is not relevant to this argument and I realise he did not do that last time—perhaps I may suggest that we have something from which the rest of the United Kingdom might learn just a little. Because of our problems in Northern Ireland,

979
all military and police personnel have had access to the countryside throughout the hours of darkness and daylight.
It is extremely important that people do not surprise animals within the area of farm buildings. The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, mentioned rights of way. That is entirely different. Animals get used to routine. They will get used to a football match or a quarry blasting in the countryside. They will also get totally used to a right of way where children laugh and shout and to whatever else might happen on that right of way.
However, they are very susceptible to being surprised. In the farm buildings there will often be cattle—especially in wintertime—enclosed in close confines within metal bars, standing on slippery floors because of slats and so on. There may be sheep which are either about to lamb or have just lambed. So there may be lambs all over the place. When they are surprised, ewes abort their lambs and cows abort or give birth to dead calves.
I am not producing these facts out of a hat. We have had hundreds of thousands of pounds worth of claims. Those noble Lords who have served in Northern Ireland, especially the noble Earl, Lord Arran, will know perfectly well that the claims arose as a result of people surprising animals at night. I often patrolled in Fermanagh at night. We were all farmers so we had some idea of what would happen. When you came up to a farm in the dark you had to be incredibly careful. Apart from anything else, animals gave you away if you were trying to he covert.
As I said, we have had claims for damages. I simply do not see why people who want to enjoy the countryside should be allowed to enjoy the farmyard when it is none of their business and there is an inherent danger. Indeed, if anyone is hurt, there will be a claim the other way. I support the amendment.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Peel. The Government should look at this amendment as a way of making the legislation acceptable to the rural community. We are enacting a very big change and, in general, as the Government know, I support it. But it is important that we should not unnecessarily antagonise people who live and work in the countryside. There is an increasing amount of rural crime of every kind, particularly thefts from farm buildings—tractors, batteries and every type of small tool. It is not a matter of whether there is a specific line—a circle of 20 metres—around a building. What my noble friend seeks is something in the statute which makes it possible for the land occupier, owner or farmer to challenge someone who perhaps is up to no good without that person being able to say, "I have a perfect right to be here".
Such challenges would not be made very often. Ordinary, genuine walkers who strayed within the 20 metres—it would be much easier if we said 100 yards as most people in my part of the country would understand that a great deal better—would not be a
980
problem. It is a matter of making the legislation "country friendly". If that is not done, there is a danger of causing antagonism that could be avoided.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: M y Lords, noble Lords have set out a number of reasons why the amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Peel, makes some sense, particularly if we are to have night access. It is hard to prejudge exactly where we should go on this issue, but I understand the arguments that have been put forward. How will people tell whether a building is a dwelling-house or a farm building? I understand also the argument about animals being frightened. I look forward to hearing the Minister's reply to the amendment.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I do not accept the arguments that have been put forward. I indicated earlier that I was reluctant to give the concession in relation to the 20 metres. I did so because in many circumstances the most obvious way for people to move around access land would involve going along areas that are fairly close to buildings. That, regrettably, is the fact in many parts of the country. There is therefore a balance to be struck. I was persuaded that the protection and the feeling of security of people who lived in houses that were isolated but would be passed fairly close by people who were using the area overrode the need to provide walkers with the most obvious path from which otherwise they would have to divert unless it was a right of way. I repeat the point that many people in the countryside will be passed considerably closer than the 20 metres by rights of way.
I have accepted the balance of protecting rural households in isolated dwellings where there is not a right of way close to them. That is common sense. However, the noble Earl's amendment suggests that every shed or isolated building, whether used or unused, should be surrounded by a 20 metre exclusion zone. That is a serious incursion into many areas where the obvious path will be within the 20 metres, particularly as regards access higher land. I therefore suggest that the balance suggested by the noble Earl is not appropriate.
The noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, said that we are talking about farmyards. We are not talking about farmyards. In most cases farmyards will be excluded, but in any case we are talking here about isolated buildings around which there is not a curtilage greater than 20 metres and there is not a garden or cultivated area. Therefore, we are not talking here about access to what, in common parlance, would be regarded as a farmyard. We are talking about protecting the privacy and security of people who live in isolated cottages. We are not talking about denying the right of passage to every shed that happens to exist in the countryside. The noble Earl is pressing further unnecessary exclusions from the Bill. I do not think that we should accept them.

981
The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, was concerned about how people would know. In relation to dwelling-houses, it would be one of the simpler rules. People would know that if it was a house they should not move within 20 metres of it. That would be common right across the countryside. If the garden was larger than 20 metres, they would keep that far away as well. That is a fairly straightforward rule which can be justified to walkers. The idea that every building could similarly be protected is not appropriate and would be a serious incursion into the amount of land that was available. I therefore hope that the noble Earl does not pursue the amendment and sticks with the protection of country dwellers rather than of every building that happens to be in the countryside.
Earl Peel: My Lords, I received the answer from the Minister which he told me in advance of moving the amendment I would receive. I thank him for that. At least he has been consistent.
The Minister said that he was reluctant in the first place to give 20 metres. He may be interested to know that in their right to access legislation the Danes give 150 metres. But I suspect that the Government are not particularly interested in what the Danes do. That apart, the noble Lord said that my amendment would be a serious incursion into the amount of land that was available. I do not think that that is so. My noble friend Lord Marlesford was absolutely right. We are looking for something that will make people realise that the legislation is not there to drive a wedge between town and country people. That is an important point, but it is one that is so often ignored.
I congratulate the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, on opening the night-time access debate very successfully indeed. He made some extremely telling points. The Government should heed carefully the information given by the noble Viscount from his experiences in Northern Ireland.
I was interested in the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, and the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, from the Liberal Democrat Benches. I think I am right in saying that they have a degree of sympathy for the amendment. I shall take the opportunity of discussing the matter further with them. Perhaps we will come back at the next stage with a joint Conservative/Liberal Democrat amendment. That would make an interesting move forward! Given those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 63, line 9, at end insert—
("2A. Land within 20 metres of a dwelling.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Byford Baroness Byford moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 63, line 10, at end insert ("or allotment").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment provides for a small addition which I hope that the Minister will be able to accept. On studying the descriptions and definitions here, we felt that allotments—which are particular and form a peculiar type of land use—should be covered by the regulations in the Bill. I beg to move.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, as a firm supporter of allotments, I understand why the noble Baroness has tabled this amendment. Given that the House has shown itself keen on definitions this afternoon, does her proposition cover allotments which are defined as such? If someone digs a patch of land 12 metres square and plants a few Brussels sprouts, would that qualify?
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I hope that it is in order for me to respond to the noble Baroness. I had assumed that the amendment would cover what are classed as "acknowledged" allotments rather than any patch of land which has been dug. Official allotments are registered and it is those to which I refer in this amendment.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, if the noble Baroness is referring to registered allotments rather than to the kind of circumstances outlined by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, or to areas where, perhaps historically, allotments were sited but have now fallen into disuse, such as in some moorland areas as a result of wartime or other cultivation, then I have some sympathy with her amendment. We shall need to tidy it a little in that respect. If the noble Baroness would allow me that leeway and withdraw her amendment at this stage, I shall then consult with her between now and Third Reading.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for that response. Many people are very keen on allotments and an amendment to the Bill would provide a solution to this small problem. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 13 not moved.]
Lord Northbrook Lord Northbrook moved Amendment No. 13A:
Page 63, line 21 (leave out "covered by pens") and (insert "of under 10 hectares in size").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I wish to move Amendment No. 13A and speak at the same time to Amendment No. 13B. In doing so, I should declare an interest as a landowner who does not own livestock, but who rents out grazing to a local farmer.
The background to these probing amendments is threefold. First, they address the important issue of dogs fouling pasture. This presents a serious potential problem for cattle. If dog faeces gets into grass cut for hay, it can cause potentially serious health problems. Secondly, inclusion of these areas will, as has been mentioned in discussions on previous amendments,

983
make the task of mapping much easier. Thirdly, the lack of disturbance will be of benefit to ground-nesting birds in permanent pasture. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I think that the noble Lord may be taking us forward, in part, to the rather lengthy series of groupings that deal with dogs, which we will discuss later. However, the noble Lord's amendment would exclude walkers with or without dogs. For that reason, I would resist it. Plenty of perfectly viable access countryside comprising land of more or less than 10 hectares already exists. Walkers on such land coexist with grazing livestock. It would be inappropriate to exclude all of that land from walkers. I therefore could not accept the amendment.
The issue of walkers with dogs raises different and more widespread concerns. The Government have already ensured that the Bill contains certain restrictions in relation to dogs. These require walkers to keep dogs on leads while on access land during March to July and at all times in the vicinity of livestock. The phrase "in the vicinity" would certainly include within a field of 10 hectares. Perhaps we should have that discussion when we discuss the amendments relating to dogs. However, because this amendment is more widely drawn, I would ask the noble Lord not to pursue it.
Lord Northbrook: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. I shall read carefully his response in Hansard. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 13B not moved.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 63, line 22, at end insert—
("9A. Land habitually used for the training of racehorses.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 17. These government amendments recognise the special needs of the racehorse training industry.
We accept that there are real concerns about how best to reconcile the new right of access with the training of racehorses on land which qualifies as access land. We have listened to the debates in this House and to the industry. As a result, we have brought forward these amendments in order to target action where it is needed.
I believe that there is common ground between the Government and the racing industry that the exclusion of access from training gallops should not be more than is required to ensure the safety of employees, their horses and the public. These amendments will therefore provide for access to be excepted from land used for training racehorses between the hours of sunrise and midday and at other times when the land is being used for that purpose. I beg to move.
The Earl of Carnarvon: My Lords, I should declare an interest as an owner and breeder of racehorses. The
984
Government have listened carefully to the views of the racing interests as regards access to these areas. I am extremely grateful to the Minister and his advisers for the helpful way in which they have looked at this problem and come forward with their amendments.
We were considering an extremely dangerous situation where the public at large might quite innocently walk across land used for racehorses in the middle of an exercise during the early hours of the morning. Someone could easily have met with serious injury. I believe that the amendment will be helpful to trainers, their staff, riders and jockeys.
I believe that it may interest noble Lords to know of the statistics at Newmarket, supplied by the Jockey Club land agent. Some 24 hospitalised cases are reported every year, along with one death—and those incidents do not in any way involve the general public. If someone should stand up after sleeping behind a bush just as horses—in particular two year-olds— walked by, the horses would scatter. Serious damage would probably be incurred by the horses but, more importantly, serious injury could easily be caused to the riders.
What the Government have suggested is excellent and will be welcomed by all sections of the racing industry.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, my name was added to the amendment tabled in Committee which has led to this most welcome pair of government amendments. Perhaps I may add my thanks. This move will give a great many people pleasure and will probably save many lives.
Perhaps I may ask the Minister a question: are point-to-point courses to be covered by the same conditions that are to be applied to racecourses and gallops?
Baroness Byford: My Lords, from these Benches I wish to express my thanks to the Minister for tabling these two amendments. I should like in particular to compliment the Minister on including sub-paragraph (b) to new Paragraph 13 in Amendment No. 17. As noble Lords know, some training takes place in the morning, while some takes place in the afternoon. The Government have recognised this and have offered the required flexibility. That is much appreciated.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I apologise that I did not intervene before my noble friend rose to speak. I also attended the meeting arranged by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, to consider this subject. I appreciated enormously the sensitivity with which he listened to the discussions.
Perhaps I may ask a question. My contact on this subject is a trainer with gallops in the Lam bourn area. He told me that severe problems can arise if bottles or cans are dropped on the gallops because they can hurt the horses very badly. Does the Minister have it in mind to ensure that any code of practice or guidance which is issued to walkers will point out the importance to the welfare of horses of not dropping litter in areas which are used as gallops?
5.30 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, let me to try to respond, with thanks, to the comments that have been made.
So far as concerns point-to-point meetings, my understanding is that if such a meeting is to be held on access land, an application would be made for the closure of that land for that purpose during the period that the point-to-point is taking place.
Of course, not all training gallops will be mapped as open country for the purpose of right of access. I would guess that most gallops would take place out of open country because their management and setting would not qualify them to be mapped as mountain, moor, heath or down. We have made this provision for the minority which fall into that category.
As to litter, bottles and cans and so on are litter. The dropping of litter is an offence in many places, not only on access land. The same regulations will apply to access land as to other places.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Hardy of Wath Lord Hardy of Wath moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 63, line 24, at end insert—
(" . Land within a recognised nature reserve where public access could destroy or damage protected fauna or flora.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No.15 seeks to include in the list of excepted areas,
"Land within a recognised nature reserve where public access could destroy or damage protected fauna or flora".
I do not wish to detain the House for long. Noble Lords on both sides of the House are aware of many of the arguments that could be advanced in support of the amendment. We have, for example, on frequent occasions referred to the problems in regard to ground-nesting birds and the way in which they can easily be disturbed and their breeding patterns ruined. It is true that many farmers and landowners take a sympathetic view towards the survival of these species—but not all. Sometimes it is desirable that birds should live and breed in a nature reserve.
It is even more important for plants. In a communication this morning from Plant Life—one of the plethora of conservation bodies—I was reminded that many counties in England have seen almost one species of wild plant disappear each year. Many noble Lords may think that is certainly the case in the arable areas of southern and eastern England, but in Cumbria, in the last century, at least 48 species of wild plants have gone.
The people who will enjoy the access provided in the Bill will not wish wantonly to trample or uproot such plants, but the plants could be endangered by their movement, especially if they are unaware of where the plants are. The difficulty is that if one had a rare plant and drew it to the attention of walkers, 99 per cent of them would recognise the importance of ensuring that that plant survived. But the other 1 per cent would recognise that, by its very rarity, it has value, and they would uproot it. Our experience with limestone pavements has shown that quite a lot of people have
986
made a great deal of money by ravishing that important part of our natural heritage. Such people might decide that the uprooting of a rare wild plant was an equally profitable venture.
At the same time, however, people need to be able to see the rare birds and the rare plants. It would be therefore a good idea for the nature reserves to enjoy a degree of protection that allows them to steer and guide ramblers and show them, or let them see, where the rare plant or the rare bird may be. If there is no such protection, ramblers will be able to walk willy-nilly across nature reserves and perhaps more harm than good will be done.
I recognise that the Government are extremely committed to the causes of biological diversity and the survival of the species. Adding this provision to the Bill would strengthen the Government's reputation in that area.
I am not suggesting—the amendment does not suggest or require—that the whole of sometimes very extensive nature reserves are protected. But the part of a nature reserve which contains the nest of a rare bird or a rare species of flower should be protected. I do not say that rare species should be protected to the point where they cannot be seen. Those noble Lords who visited RSPB reserves in Scotland will have seen what can be done in this respect. The public are able to watch the osprey there because the reserve is organised in a way which enables them to do so. The provision in the amendment would encourage such opportunities.
I hope that the Minister will feel able to accept the amendment. If he is unable to do so, I hope that he will bring forward a version of the amendment which will provide this opportunity. Too many species—particularly flora—are now hanging on by the skin of their teeth. They need all the help that can be given if they are to survive. This seems to me to be a useful way of contributing to their survival. I beg to move.
Viscount Brookeborough: My Lords, I support the amendment. Perhaps I may offer the Government a suggestion. We have heard already that the MoD has sanctuaries in many places—on Salisbury Plain, at Lulworth Cove and so on—and that it is one of the best custodians of conserved land in this country. If we look at the way in which it manages such areas, we will find that the MoD has become very flexible in its understanding of which areas people should be kept out of and which areas they should be allowed into. After all, the MoD has full access to training areas at all times of the day and night, but there are parts of every training area in Great Britain to which soldiers are not permitted access because of the value of the flora or fauna to be found there, or for some other reason. I support the amendment.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, we on these Benches support the thrust of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Hardy. He admitted that his amendment may not be perfect and he has indicated that he is willing to allow the Minister to come back with a different version.

987
The amendment concerns "a recognised nature reserve". Perhaps one of the Government's fears is that anyone, anywhere, could say that a site should be excepted land. Many voluntary organisations are working to preserve and conserve the countryside. If this is not acknowledged to be a problem, the fear is that that support may dwindle. That would be a great shame because individuals make contributions either through the practical running of the centres or through the money they raise.
The noble Lord seeks some form of protection within nature reserves which enables them to be enjoyed by people, but on an organised basis. If I understand the noble Lord correctly—which I hope I do—I am happy to support the amendment.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, the purpose of the list of exceptions in Schedule 1 is to exclude public access from land which may be mapped as open country or registered common land but to which a right of access should none the less not apply—for example, buildings and their curtilages. Nature reserves do not fall into that category.
English Nature has powers stemming from the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 to designate land as a national nature reserve or a local nature reserve, with the aim of securing protection and appropriate management of the most important areas of wildlife habitat. Many reserves have public access. Indeed, they positively encourage it, as my noble friend Lord Hardy of Wath said. With relatively few exceptions, access and wildlife can co-exist without significant problems.
My noble friend referred to public access in Scotland to see the osprey. There is a marvellous bird sanctuary near the Llyn Brianne reservoir in Wales where the same applies. There should be no automatic presumption that the conservation of such sites is incompatible with access, particularly when account is taken of the modest nature of the new right and the restrictions that will apply to it.
If a reserve has been mapped as open countryside or registered as common land and there are particular problems with access, the Bill specifically provides for closures or restrictions on grounds of conservation. Clause 24 provides for the relevant authority—the Countryside Agency in England and the Countryside Council for Wales, or in national parks, the relevant national park authority—to issue directions excluding or restricting access for reasons of nature conservation. In doing so, the authority must have regard to the advice of the appropriate statutory advisory body: English Nature for land in England. We have made provision for any case to be referred to the Secretary of State (or the National Assembly) if English Nature (or its Welsh equivalent) still has concerns.
There is no question of compromising our conservation objectives in favour of access. Part III of the Bill reflects our commitment to the protection of wildlife and nature conservation. We are determined to ensure that vulnerable habitats are protected as
988
necessary. But the impact of access on wildlife must be put in perspective: most designated reserves have some form of access and this has not given rise to significant problems.
The noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, raised the issue of MoD land. There is a variety of factors. It is certainly the case that the MoD is very proud of some of the work that it has done. On occasions, it may be because slightly less mechanised and less intensive forms of farming take place on some MoD land. However, I agree that the MoD has a good record.
The Government recognise that there may be cases where conflicts arise and where access needs to be restricted, or even excluded altogether. I assure my noble friend Lord Hardy that the Bill provides for that. We therefore believe that a blanket exclusion of nature reserves is not the right approach; it is neither needed nor justified. I hope that I have thoroughly convinced my noble friend, and that he will not feel it necessary to press his amendment.
Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend, as I am to the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, and the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough. Before responding to my noble friend, perhaps I may say to the noble Viscount that I am well aware of the contribution made on Ministry of Defence land. The MoD once embarrassed me, on the day before I was to present the Conservation of Wild Creatures and Wild Plants Bill. The Bill included the protection of the natterjack toad, which is extremely rare. The officer in charge in the Aldershot-Salisbury area contacted me to say that they were just about to release several thousand natterjack toads that they had bred on Salisbury Plain. I asked him to treat it as a matter of great confidentiality; otherwise, my Bill might have been in peril the next day.
One of my anxieties has not been entirely relieved by my noble friend's response. I accept the reference to the 1949 Act. However, one of the difficulties in this whole area is that the location of species needs to be kept secret; otherwise they will be stolen. I do not know whether there are any Snowdon lilies left in Snowdonia, but they were among the rare species that were protected under my Bill, which became an Act in 1975. One of the reasons for their decline was that people had gone round stealing them.
If the matter is left to English Nature, it is possible for the risk of publicity to be greatly enhanced. If it is left with the conservation bodies, they can be a little more discreet. That is one reason why the lady's slipper orchid still survives, when it was down to only one plant in 1976.
If we are to ensure the survival of certain natural species, and the guarantee of consistent support for biological diversity in a sensible way, it may well be that a little more responsibility or influence should be accepted on the part of the voluntary bodies—which work happily with English Nature and will continue to do so while my noble friend Lady Young is involved.
I should like to clear up one misapprehension, which my noble friend might acknowledge. The amendment relates to land within nature reserves. I did not intend

989
it to apply to the whole of a nature reserve—because some are very large indeed. But there may be pockets of a nature reserve where there is a sudden recognition or identification of an extremely rare species. Fast action may be needed, and may be more likely to come about if those who are responsible for the reserve can respond immediately to that need. The amendment would provide a greater degree of flexibility. Perhaps my noble friend and her assistants will re-examine the whole question of the need to maintain confidentiality and the ability to respond urgently should the need arise. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.45 p.m.
The Duke of Montrose The Duke of Montrose moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 63, line 24, at end insert—
(" . Land subject to a management agreement under the countryside stewardship scheme, or other environmental protection measures, where the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food finds that access is, or liable to be, damaging to the purposes of the scheme.").
The noble Duke said: My Lords, I listened with great interest to the previous debate. It seems that the noble Lord, Lord Hardy of Wath, and I are approaching a similar problem, but for different reasons. I must first declare an interest as a farmer who, for the past four years, has benefited from one of the earliest agri-environmental schemes.
I am afraid that there was a slight difficulty in compiling the Marshalled List. Last night, I asked for the term "agri-environmental" to be introduced into the amendment. As a result of some strange state of confusion, the term was not actually included. My amendment should include not merely "environmental", but "agri-environmental" in order to focus it more closely.
These schemes enable the Government to give financial assistance to farmers for the management and improvement of areas in natural and environmental terms. They can be of particular assistance to organic growers. These can be old hay meadows or downland, heather, hedgerows, water-meadows, sand dunes, and so on. The regulations governing the schemes sometimes include a requirement for the exclusion of livestock at certain times of the year. The schemes also give assistance in the maintenance of walls and hedges.
Any farmer entering into one of these schemes has to sign up to a management agreement which, in most cases, can be for 10 years. During that time he will receive the appropriate annual payments, which are generally in the region of £2,000 to £5,000 per annum. Both the farmer and his successors are bound by the agreement.
Quite a number of farmers are glad that their land is not included in a nature reserve; they find that that restricts their activities in ways that they may not fully appreciate. But at the same time, they do not have the safeguards, referred to by the Minister, which are
990
available to people whose land is in a nature reserve for the control of the public when a conservation issue arises.
The legal basis of the scheme is laid out in a statutory instrument—the Countryside Stewardship Regulations 1998. The problem that my amendment attempts to address is that, if a farmer is in breach of any of the conditions subject to which the grant was made, the Minister is liable not just to withhold future grant but to recover any grant already paid to him, with a possible penalty of 10 per cent over and above that sum. If access has had a detrimental effect on the conditions laid down in the management agreement—and that may only be discovered, say, six years after the scheme was put in place—the amount that could be reclaimed could total £33,000.
Access may damage some of the primary purposes of the scheme, but many of the secondary purposes are aimed at the encouragement of wildlife and rare species of plants and insects. Access could also have an effect in that area. The noble Lord, Lord Hardy of Wath, referred to the problems that can arise from access within nature reserves. In these areas, the situation might be the same. At present, the farming press speaks of the amazing recovery of the stone curlew in East Anglia due to improved farming practices. It would be a great pity if any of that benefit, which involves public investment, were lost. The other aspect is that the MAFF may want to take this loss of benefit into the argument of eligibility for grants, especially when considering new applicants. I beg to move.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Ampthill): My Lords, I should point out to the House that the word, or half-word, "agri-" should be added to the beginning of the word "environmental" in line 2 of this amendment.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, with this amendment we return to the question of balance within the countryside. I believe that existing management agreements could be put in jeopardy and penalty clauses invoked as a result of this Bill, which would be detrimental to the conservation aspects of the agri-environment and country stewardship schemes. Therefore, in my view, it is totally wrong for one department within government to be encouraging farmers to go in one direction, while the DETR will, with this Bill, be quite unintentionally undermining the efforts of MAFF to encourage farmers to improve their farming practices and adopt more conservation-oriented ways of carrying out their work. Those are the reasons behind my support for my noble friend and this amendment.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, as a result of this Bill reaching the statute book, I hope that MAFF will take an overall look at the way that its schemes and regulations impact on farmers and consider how that ties in with this legislation. Previous speakers have made some interesting points. In Committee, I raised the point several times that the new hill farm allowance scheme has no provision for

991
taking into account the forthcoming impact that open access will have. Indeed, it is not even mentioned in the criteria. Therefore, I add a plea from these Benches that MAFF should be asked to consider the impact of this Bill. It should also give some thought to the way that its schemes and grants tie in with the kind of objectives that we are working towards under this legislation.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, I wish also to support this amendment, which I believe to be of tremendous importance. It is of particular importance to Wales because we have what is known as the tir cymen scheme, which is similar but rather better, so I am told, than the stewardship scheme. It is run by the Countryside Council for Wales. Therefore, one assumes that the council would have a power to exclude any land that is under a management scheme, if it thought that the conditions would be vitiated by its declaration as "open access land".
I stress the importance of this matter because the these management schemes are becoming a vital source of income, especially for hill farmers. We are aware of what the average farm income is in England—I believe that it is about £10,000 a year—but it is £5,000 and decreasing in Wales. Therefore, such management schemes are very popular with the farming community because they make a substantial contribution to farm incomes.
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I rise to express my support for my noble friend's amendment. We have had a number of discussions on this matter, which clearly show that the impact of this Bill will cross departmental boundaries on many fronts. I believe that the issue now before us highlights the situation because of the sensitivity of the agricultural industry at present. I look forward to hearing some reassurance from either the noble Baroness or the noble Lord that they can really turn on some joined-up government.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I can reassure the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, that there will of course be joined-up government; indeed, it is a fundamental part of the Government's approach to all parts of this Bill.
I should like also to reassure all speakers in the debate that Chapter II of the Bill already makes full provision for the exclusion or restriction of access where that is necessary in the interests of land management or conservation. All the examples that have been referred to would fall within that category, were that to be the case. Therefore, it is extremely important for me to reassure noble Lords that there are already sufficient mechanisms in place in the Bill to protect the interests of countryside stewardship sites, as for any other land.
It is inconceivable that a farmer would be held liable for any breach of an agri-environmental agreement, if the breach arose as a result of access. However, as I said, the mechanisms exist within the Bill to ensure that such schemes will not be put at risk in the first instance because of access. I agree with those who have
992
spoken in this debate that the existence of such schemes is very important in many areas, especially in the north of England and in Wales. They are also crucial to the objective of protecting the countryside. With those reassurances, I hope that the noble Duke will not find it necessary to press his amendment. I can assure him that we are fully aware of the importance of the subject to which he spoke.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I was most interested in the noble Baroness's response. I believe that I am reassured. However, before she concludes, can she confirm that, if I were an owner of land—which I am not—that was subject to a stewardship scheme, I could approach the Countryside Agency, tell the officials that the land was under such a scheme, show them a map and then it would automatically become excluded land?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Earl does not expect my answer to be "yes" to that question. However, the answer would be "yes" in circumstances where either the interests of land management or conservation interests were best served by such an exclusion. It is not automatically the case. But, quite clearly, many of the situations to which other noble Lords referred would be very relevant in terms of conservation. I repeat: it is not automatic.
The Duke of Montrose: My Lords, I was extremely interested to hear what the noble Baroness said in her response. I was similarly interested in the various aspects of conservation that were mentioned by other noble Lords. However, I am left with this question. If the farmer sees deterioration taking place, will it be his responsibility to approach the body concerned? I am not quite sure which body he would have to approach—for example, whether it would be the Countryside Agency, or whoever—in order to get an exclusion order implemented. It may well become the responsibility of the farmer, but the point here is to stop the access before the deterioration goes too far. Nevertheless, in view of the assurances given by the noble Baroness, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 64, line 15, at end insert—
("13. Land which is habitually used for the training of racehorses is not to be treated by virtue of paragraph 9A as excepted land except—

(a) between dawn and midday on any day, and

(b) at any other time when it is in use for that purpose.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
6 p.m.
Clause 2 [Rights of public in relation to access land]:
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 2, line 28, at end insert (", and
(c) he observes the byelaws which the access authority shall prescribe").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this matter was discussed in Committee but perhaps not in the detail that it should have been. At that stage we went off on a slight tangent as I believe that the Government misunderstood the purpose of the amendment.
I fully accept that the breaking of a by-law is a criminal offence. However, by-laws must be in place. That is the whole nub of my amendment which is pivotal on the word "shall". The Minister has already said this afternoon that the Government require flexibility. However, by-laws must be in place to make the Bill workable. If that flexibility is not backed up by by-laws, I fear that the Bill will be unworkable as the provisions in each area will be different.
Unless by-laws are in place and criminal proceedings can be invoked when they are transgressed, the Bill will become unworkable. That is what we all dread; it is not the purpose of the exercise. The amendment clarifies the situation and allows the Government the flexibility they seek but asks the appropriate bodies to put by-laws in place to back up that flexibility. I beg to move.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I am sorry that in Committee the noble Earl did not obtain the response he wanted. He makes an unusual request in asking for by-laws to be established in every area. The value of by-laws lies in their ability to respond to particular local circumstances. It is unusual to seek to impose a network of by-laws. People may consider that by-laws are not needed in certain areas. Where bylaws are put in place by the access authority under Clause 17, it will be a criminal offence to breach them, as the noble Earl recognises. A fine of up to £500 may be imposed.
The effect of Clause 2(1) and paragraph 1(d) of Schedule 2 is that any person who commits a criminal offence is not entitled to exercise the statutory right of access. Those exercising the right of access must comply with any by-law in order to retain that right. It is not logical for us to seek to impose by-laws unilaterally and uniformly, whatever the local circumstances. I hope that the noble Earl will not press the amendment.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the whole point of by-laws is that they are not uniform. They cannot be imposed uniformly across the country. The Government appear to have given access authorities flexibility in these matters. However, unless that is backed up by by-laws, the Bill will be unworkable in many areas. If access authorities do not establish bylaws, the Bill will be unintelligible, unworkable and will lead to division in the countryside. The Government are making a rod for their own back on this issue. However, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Viscount Bledisloe Viscount Bledisloe moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 2, line 30, at end insert—
("( ) Save as hereinafter provided, a person is not entitled to enter on access land during the night or to remain on access land during the night unless prevented from leaving it by unforeseen circumstances.
( ) If, after proper consultation, it appears to the appropriate countryside body that certain access land is suitable for access at night, it may determine that such land is open for access at night, and any such determination may impose such limitations or conditions as to access at night as appear to it to be appropriate.").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 19, I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 28, both of which stand in my name. The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, has kindly added her name to Amendment No. 19. The amendments deal with the vexed question of night access. I hope that they provide a compromise solution which will resolve this knotty problem.
Amendment No. 28 provides a definition of "night" which would be helpful to those seeking night access. The amendment states:
"'night' means the period from one hour after sunset to one hour before sunrise on the following day".
The amendment would allow people to view sunset and sunrise.
Amendment No. 19 forbids people to enter access land at night; it requires them to leave it before night falls. However, it makes express provision for those who are delayed in leaving the land by unforeseen circumstances. They do not commit the offence of trespass if, for example, they become lost, fog descends or they are hurt. That deals with the concern expressed in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, and others that if fog descended or conditions deteriorated people might expose themselves to danger trying to leave the land come what may when it would be much more sensible for them to "hunker down" and wait for the fog to clear.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount for giving way. Would his amendment alter the position in those areas where there is existing access at night, for example in the Lake District? Would the amendment take away that right?
Viscount Bledisloe: My Lords, I take nothing away. I do not think that the Bill takes anything away; it merely states that under its terms access will be subject to certain provisos. It does not say anything about existing rights of access. To put at rest another concern that has been expressed, it does not in any way take away the power of a landowner to allow access, as many frequently do, particularly where the access has been sought by an organised body.
Under the terms of the amendment, with the exception of the person who is delayed by unforeseen circumstances, normally—I stress the word "normally"—there will be no right of access to the land between one hour after sunset and one hour before sunrise on the following day. That approach stems from the view expressed by many in Committee that there is generally no need for access to roam at night

995
as opposed to access to footpaths at night. If and in so far as there is a desire to roam at night on the part of a limited number of people, the value of that desire is greatly outweighed by the manifest problems which night access can engender. Many mentioned those problems in Committee and may, no doubt, repeat them. They include disturbance to wildlife and stock—the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, mentioned that—fear engendered in those who occupy the land by people roaming around; the opportunities it creates for crime; the difficulty posed for those responsible for the land in knowing whether a person on the land at night is genuinely and honestly exercising his access right or has a more evil intent; and the interruption to legitimate night activities such as lamping for foxes. That is the basic premise of the amendment. However, it recognises that there may be land where those problems do not apply to which night access can be allowed safely and properly. It provides that after due consultation the appropriate countryside body can decide to allow night access to specific land. It can do so absolutely, or subject to certain restrictions or conditions—for example, restriction to a particular time of the year.
Thus for night access the presumption of the remainder of the Bill would be altered. Instead of access being allowed with the authority having power to exclude it in certain circumstances, the amendment provides that night access would normally not be allowed but the authority would have power to allow it where it believed that danger or problems would not arise. This in no way infringes on the fact that owners can give permission. They often do so when night access is by an organised body.
I hope that the amendment is a genuine, reasonable compromise which reconciles this difficult conflict. Unless that conflict is resolved by a provision such as this, it will be a major cause of friction, trouble and unhappiness and do much to damage the otherwise admirable principles of the Bill. I beg to move.
6.15 p.m.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I have put my name to the amendment. We spent many a long hour in Committee debating the reasons that night-time access should not be allowed. The noble Viscount refers again to the issue. I shall not delay the House by going through those reasons in detail. The noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, was not with us in Committee. He highlighted some of the difficulties of allowing night-time access.
We are referring to access land. Access to rights of way at night time will still exist. If night-time access is allowed, people who live in remote areas will not know which individuals they can challenge. If night-time access is with the agreement of the landowner, their fear is reduced. If permission has not been given, there is a good chance that people who are present at night should not be there. Foggy conditions and so on would have to be taken into account. In those circumstances, those in rural areas would feel greater security.
996
I refer also to the safety and security of people out at night. Much of the land that they will visit is unsafe at night. Mapping will identify areas of bog but the situation at night is difficult. I am sure that noble Lords will have helped people who have got into difficulty at night. There is the very real problem of the safety and security of those people.
We are talking about the principle of night-time access. We have to balance the safety and security of the people living in these areas—they know whether people should or should not be present at night—with the desire of those who wish to wander. In Committee, noble Lords understood that balance but pointed out that if individuals have a right to go out at night they know that they may get into difficulty and require help. That right has to be balanced against the realistic problems of those who live in the area. Crime in rural areas is still a great and increasing problem. Unfortunately the quick emergency response for those living nearer towns is not available.
We debated the issue at great length in Committee. I hope that the Minister has been able to consider the arguments put forward. Noble Lords have argued that the individual night-time walker or rambler knows the risks that he runs. But is the right to take that risk greater than the right to safety and security for those who live and work in the area? That is the difficulty the House has to decide.
The noble Viscount referred to land management and the control of foxes. They are often lamped at night. It would be most unfortunate if people became involved in such a situation unwittingly.
I shall not go into other issues raised in Committee; other noble Lords may wish to do so. I recognise that night-time access will give pleasure to some people who wish to wander off rights of way. The amendment does not affect the individual's ability to enjoy night-time access on rights of way. I hope that the House will achieve a balance between the safety and security of people and the conservation of wildlife. I am happy to support the amendment.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, perhaps I may draw noble Lords' attention to the Companion—we have all received recently a beautiful new copy—which states that,
"Arguments fully deployed in Committee of the Whole House should not be repeated at length on report".
The patience of the House may well be tried if every noble Lord who speaks goes over the same arguments again. So far I have not heard a single new argument.
Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, I hope that my noble friend will think that I offer a new point. I was unable to take part in the debate in Committee. I am interested in the issue. It is inevitable; for a long time I represented a county constituency with 246 farms within it. There is anxiety. I hope that we shall achieve a balance.
One slight inconsistency puzzles me. Perhaps the Minister will explain it. On the one hand we are keen to see the protection of ground-nesting birds by banning

997
dogs from March to August. I do not complain about that. On the other hand, we are prepared to see humans going way off the footpaths, probably disturbing ground-nesting birds. From my observations of the species, the bird that is disturbed during the day is likely to return to the nest more quickly than the bird disturbed at night. I should be grateful if my noble friend will explain the inconsistency.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, I refer to an issue which I do not believe has been mentioned—the danger of arson. When the hay has been cut in the summer, it is common practice to take it by tractor or trailer, when the ground is hard, to the hill to store. I have a small, remote Dutch barn full of hay that has been torched three times over the years. It has been burnt down, rebuilt with the insurance money, burnt down again and rebuilt again with money that was rather more reluctantly provided by the insurance company. There is always a danger of arson with remote farm buildings. If there is no Lebensraum or protective area around farm buildings—I think that I heard the Minister say on the previous amendment that that will apply only to residential buildings—there will be a danger of buildings being torched.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I shall not detain the House for long. I was not here during Committee stage and I realise that the House would lose its patience with me if I was other than very brief. However, I should like to contribute to the debate because so many people have shared with me their concerns about night-time access.
There is enormous concern in the countryside about crime. It will be unfortunate if we finish up with a Bill that does not fully take into consideration the concerns of people who live in the countryside. It has been regularly pointed out that we need to strike a balance so that the end product is largely acceptable to country dwellers.
If it is thought that night-time access will have comparatively little effect, because not many people will exercise the right to roam about at night, I wonder why we are going to all this trouble and causing so much concern in the countryside about it. If, on the other hand, the Bill's effects are going to be potent, we have to consider the wellbeing of people living in isolated homes in the countryside near access land. What about their peace of mind when they see lights at night in the open countryside close to their home, or when they hear people not far from their home? The police will not come, because they will feel that it would be a waste of time. Some have argued that burglars might be deterred from going on access land by the prospect of coming into contact with people who are exercising their right of access, but if the householders go out to see what is going on, ramblers and burglars alike will give the same response—that they are simply exercising their right of access.
Some say that it would be difficult to enforce a ban on access at night, but at least the householder would be able to take some action if he saw or heard someone
998
lurking around by his home. He would be able to go out and challenge that person and tell them to clear off. He could also call the police.
Of course we must have proper regard to genuine country lovers. There are plenty of those who would no doubt wish to see the sunrise or the sunset. They are catered for by the amendment. There is no reason for access not to be granted during the hour after sunset and the hour before dawn. I cannot for the life of me understand why those who want to see the night sky cannot do so from the very extensive network of footpaths that runs through almost the entire country.
I am not exaggerating the concerns of people who live in the countryside. I hope that the Government will bear in mind their fears that they will not be able to take proper action or get the police to do so if they are worried by the sight or sound of people moving around near to their home.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, before other noble Lords speak, I remind the House of the words from the Companion, quoted by my noble friend Lady Nicol. I think that those on both sides who were unable to be present in Committee have allowed me to be even-handed in saying that a little element of repetition of earlier arguments is now occurring.
Viscount Bledisloe: My Lords, surely the point made in the Companion relates to a topic that has already been debated. We are considering an entirely new proposition. We have never debated a system of discretion under which night access was forbidden in some places and allowed in others. It would be highly undesirable to try to shut out debate on the issue.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I am not seeking to shut out debate. I assure the noble Viscount that the issue of perceived problems with night access was thoroughly debated in Committee.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, the last thing that I want to do is run foul of my Whip, so I shall be very brief. None of the speeches in support of the amendment, or similar amendments in Committee, has answered one simple question: in those parts of the country where night access is permitted, such as the Lake District, are the problems that they have mentioned manifest? I submit that they are not. Until those who support the amendment have demonstrated that night access does not work or that it causes the enormous harm that they claim, their case falls.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, am I not correct in believing that in areas such as the Lake District, where there is night access, there is an efficient warden system?
Lord Dubs: My Lords, there is an efficient warden system, but I have seldom seen the wardens about, and certainly not as it gets dark. If night wardens were the answer, the Government could have suggested that solution.

999
The noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, talked about friction, trouble and unhappiness. I submit that there is no clear evidence that any of those problems will be caused.
To answer the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, my experience is that nearly all the isolated farmhouses in the areas to which the amendment might apply have guard dogs, which draw attention to any walker or other person in the vicinity long before any farmer or resident notices.
Of course the issue is not clear cut and it might be necessary to restrict access in some circumstances, but the amendment is the wrong way round. The normal presumption should be that night access should be permitted, except in certain areas where there are good local arguments against it.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Greaves: My Lords, I recognise that the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, has produced a new proposition and in so far as it is different from what we have considered before, it is worth debating. For the reasons that the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, has just given, the noble Viscount has it the wrong way round and the Bill has it the right way round. The normal principle in this country is that if people have liberties, they apply in all cases except when it is thought necessary to remove them in the interests of the general public or of individuals. The noble Viscount seems to propose that the liberty to walk on access land at night should not exist except in certain circumstances when it is thought desirable. That is the wrong way round. The Bill provides an opportunity to deal with problems when they arise.
The noble Viscount said that there was no need to roam at night. Of course, there is no need for any of us ever to go on mountains, moorland or wherever else we go. The noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, may tell us that there is a need because it is necessary for us all to keep fit. However, I believe that that is the only evidence of need to have been produced in these debates. We are discussing whether people should have a new right—some might say an historic right restored—to walk on land which will be declared as access land. For the reasons which we debated at great length in Committee, that right should exist.
At the risk of upsetting the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, and the Whip, I want to revisit one or two matters that we discussed in Committee. I have considered carefully whether some of the things that were said in Committee should cause me to change my mind. I have looked at the matter in two ways.
First, I have considered whether we should return to the arguments that were advanced against those that I and other noble Lords put forward. The fundamental argument which we used and which has been put forward again by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, is that the people who propose change are those, including noble Lords here, who argue for night-time restrictions. In Committee we argued that wherever access is allowed, whether by rights of access in countries such as Norway, Sweden and Germany on
1000
what we would consider to be moorland mountain and not the flatlands of Denmark, or in this country, whether in the Lake District under other legislation or whether by what I believe the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, described as "access by silent consent"— a very good phrase—then no distinction is made between day and night. We advanced that argument and listened carefully for reasons why that basic principle should be changed. However, I have not heard anything which convinces me to change my mind.
I listened carefully in Committee to the arguments put forward by the noble Earl, Lord Peel. He explained why, for example, it was bad to allow people on to moorland at night. His reasons related to crime and poaching and the fact that people would get up to no good. If I have understood the arguments correctly, I believe that the first has been dismissed as being fatuous; that is, that removing the fact of trespass will encourage people to go on to land and that a right of access will encourage criminals to go on to land. That is nonsense.
Secondly, the idea that criminals—
Baroness Strange: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I have heard all his arguments before. Do we have to hear them again?
Lord Greaves: My Lords, I understand the noble Baroness's point. I shall now be as brief as I can. I believe that we must explain why we do not accept the arguments that have been put forward. That seems to me to be our duty.
The second argument put forward by noble Lords— I refer in particular to a speech made by the noble Earl—was that such a proposal would make it impossible to challenge people who went on to land. That view has been advanced again this afternoon. I do not believe that that is right. One may believe that a person is up to no good in any place—it does not have to be on access land. If one sees a person outside one's house and believes that he will break in or burgle the house, the fact that he is in the street—a highway— does not mean that he cannot be challenged. Therefore, the argument that people cannot be challenged does not wash.
The third argument put forward by the noble Earl and by other noble Lords was that one may be in a farmhouse or a cottage and see lights on a hill. If no access is allowed, one can assume that the people on the hill are up to no good or, at least, trespassing. If access is allowed, it will be difficult to come to that conclusion. I have thought hard about that scenario. Such a situation appears to present a much more serious argument, although I do not believe it to be an overriding one.
If one sees people on a hill, whether it is during the daytime when they can be seen individually or whether at night when it may be possible to see only their lights, in most cases the pattern of their movement will help to inform what they are doing. If two or three ramblers are walking across a hill or people are climbing on a

1001
local crag, the pattern of their movement will be quite different from that of people rounding up sheep when they should not be doing so. I believe that common sense suggests that in most cases a person who sees people on a hill in those circumstances will have a good idea as to whether they are—
Baroness Strange: My Lords, I beg to move that the noble Lord be no longer heard.
On Question, Whether the noble Lord be no longer heard.
The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, as many as are of that opinion will say, "Content". To the contrary, "Not-Content". I think the Not-Contents have it.
On Question, Motion negatived.
Lord Greaves: My Lords, I shall now be very brief. The noble Baroness intervened when I had virtually finished. My final point is simply that, of all the amendments to have been tabled, I believe that this one attempts to wreck the Bill, to wreck everything that it stands for and to wreck the principles behind it. I hope that the House will reject it.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I object to his last comment and ask him to withdraw it. There is no question of our trying to wreck the Bill. In fact, if we were more constructive, we should get through the Bill more quickly. I ask the noble Lord to withdraw.
Lord Greaves: My Lords, I shall repeat rather more carefully what I said previously. It is my view that, if this amendment were passed, it would wreck the principles and practice behind Part I of the Bill.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, the rules of this House matter considerably and I shall certainly stick to them. I simply want to say that I have had the same experience as the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne. I believe that people are more frightened by this part of the Bill than by any other. It concerns potential arson and I believe that the Government should pay attention to that.
Viscount Brookeborough: My Lords, I rise to support this amendment because of its flexibility. First, the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, mentioned that there did not appear to be many complaints as a result of night-time rambling in the Lake District. I do not believe that we are comparing like with like. The Lake District is a largely uninhabited area in the uplands. People who go there go properly equipped and are used to walking in such areas. In this Bill we are discussing land which is much closer to populated areas. Such land would be more accessible to the casual walker who may interfere with what goes on in the countryside.
1002
My second point is that earlier, when I ventured into the night-time argument, the Minister suggested that no single buildings housing animals existed without habitation being close by. That is simply not true. In marginal farming areas many people live away from their farm buildings with their animals. We are not necessarily discussing a farmyard scenario. The fact that such farmers may keep dogs to guard them makes it even more dangerous for people to go there at night. I suggest that problems would arise in relation to people being bitten.
Thirdly, because such farms are isolated, people often surround them with electric fences so that, if animals break out of the buildings in which they are kept, they will not venture further. Some electric fences are now powerful and supplied by the mains. They cannot be shorted so easily when farmers are not able to inspect them at every minute of the day. It can be quite frightening to come up against such a fence. I have done so at night and have floundered around a field, getting electrocuted in every corner. It is not a funny experience. I suggest that there is no reason to allow that type of situation to occur.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I wish to make two points very briefly. First, as one who is not immune to impatience, perhaps I may say that I have learnt—and the bite marks where I have bitten my lip bear me witness —that the times when we find it most hard to listen are those when it is most important that we should do so.
Secondly, I wish to put a question to the movers of this amendment which is asked in a spirit of genuine curiosity. How would the amendment impact on people in the position in which I was placed; that is, I was walking on the hills late in the afternoon when I sprained my ankle and was unable to make my way down before dark?
Lord Willoughby De Broke: My Lords, I intervene on behalf of the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe. His amendment specifically addresses the question of someone who is inadvertently unable to come down from the hill or the access area at the right time.
Earl Peel: My Lords, I should like to address briefly the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs. He raised some interesting issues. We must remember that at the moment night-time access is precluded unless on footpaths. Any night-time access that has occurred in the Lake District has occurred through negotiations between those who wish to exercise that night-time access and the owners of the land. There is a world of difference between negotiated access and access that is to be provided through this legislation.
Lord Dubs: I do not wish to prolong this debate, but I am certainly unaware that there is any need to negotiate night-time access. I have never heard of that.
Earl Peel: My Lords, there may be de facto access. The situation still arises that that is done with the tacit permission of the owner or the occupier. This is an exceptionally important point.

1003
The reason I support the amendment of the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, is because it deals with all the points raised in Committee. It introduces flexibility and consultation. It allows the access authority to decide whether or not the land is appropriate for access. As such, it overcomes many of the difficulties and problems raised in Committee.
I am not going to answer the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, who seemed to go through my speech in Committee rather carefully. I should like to make one point; that is, we must not lose sight of those people who manage the land we enjoy—the farmers, shepherds and gamekeepers. They work all hours to produce a landscape that everyone in this country appreciates. Are they now to be expected to be responsible for access at night as well as during the day? We are putting a tremendous onus upon them, and it is highly irresponsible to do so.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, it is clear from this amendment that it is more thoughtful than the amendments we discussed in Committee. As the noble l3aroness, Lady Byford, said, it is an amendment about the principle of night access. Although it addresses some of the issues that caused concern in Committee, it is a matter of principle.
Noble Lords have clearly made the point that there is another option that would address the issues of wildlife and crime; namely, to close those areas of land where there are continual problems or there is a danger of unreasonable disturbance to wildlife.
Since Committee stage I have had many communications from a number of people, as has the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, but in a different vein. My communications were from people who shared with me their anger at being regarded as potential criminals. This debate divides us into two categories. There are those who fear the dark, quite understandably. Bad things happen at night. Overwhelmingly, there are also those who take pleasure in activities that can happen in the dark on open access land.
My point is that we should not confuse crime and the fear of crime, which is very real and which many people experience, with the fact that, if people do legitimate things they enjoy at night, it does not make them more likely to be criminals and it does not address the difficulty of the real criminals.
The bottom line with this principle is that it is basically unenforceable. I do not believe that the police will back a ban on night-time access. In the last resort it is the police who must enforce the law. If it proves to be unenforceable it will detract from their ability to deal with the very real crime in rural hamlets, villages and market towns, something they are finding difficult to do at the moment.
We believe that these amendments that seek to prohibit night-time access will not work. We will not support them.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Judd: My Lords, would the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, acknowledge that the Association of Chief Police Officers has gone on record as saying that a general curfew would be unenforceable and would not enjoy public support? It would be putting an immense responsibility on the police that they believe they cannot discharge.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne: My Lords, I believe it was the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, who raised that point in Committee and put it on record.
Baroness Gale: My Lords, I speak against Amendments Nos. 19 and 28. Much has been said about access at night. The ban on access at night—if these amendments were carried—would reduce the access currently available and being used by many individuals and organisations. Bodies that allow access at night have not experienced any significant problems. The Bill already provides for closures and restrictions to be made on a local basis or for by-laws to be introduced where there is shown to be a problem with access at night.
Many people gain great pleasure from walking whether it be at night time or day time. If they wish to walk at night, why should that be denied? How would this ban be enforced? I believe that a ban on night access would be unenforceable.
Most people who enjoy walking are responsible people. They care about the countryside. So why would they not use the same responsibility at night? The risks of walking at night, falling down crevices and numerous other risks, were spoken about earlier. Those who walk are generally responsible. They take those risks into account and do not walk in dangerous areas.
There are already laws to deal with those who intend to carry out illegal activities at night,.
As the Bill stands, it provides for night access and safeguards should any problems arise. Where there are safeguards people should be allowed access —day or night—to enjoy fully the pleasures of walking. It would take away the spirit of this Bill if these amendments were carried.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, we have had a long debate on this issue as we did in Committee. The noble Viscount claimed that this was a reasonable compromise. I do not believe that it is a reasonable compromise. It effectively provides a blanket presumption that there will be no access at night. As the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, said, that severely restricts the right to access.
We have considered many of the issues raised in Committee, some of which were repeated here.
The arguments have hardly been put on behalf of those who would enjoy this access, for those engaged in hill walking and climbing for which night access is an integral part of their whole occupation and it goes right through to those who wish simply to observe the sunrise or sunset. In that context, it would take me

1005
longer than an hour to reach the top of a hill or mountain in order to observe sunrise or sunset. Therefore, we need some considerable additional periods even for that.
Beyond that, education and training establishments attach great importance to training at night time. The British Mountaineering Council advises that it is essential for leaders and individual members to have night time experience. Much of the training undertaken by the Mountain Rescue Service, referred to in Committee, is conducted at night. It is strongly in favour of not having a restriction at night.
English Nature has advised that there is no general concern over access during the hours of darkness. Many groups of naturalists require access at night in order to observe nocturnal animals and insects. Those people have special interests but they are exactly the kind of special interests to which the right of access should apply. They may not amount to very many people in total but they are important groups of people and the very fact that they may not amount to many people means that many of the fears and anxieties reflected in the debate are invalid. We are not talking about hordes of people crossing the countryside at night. We are talking about people enjoying the right of access for very specific purposes.
Very few will want to walk beyond the paths and tracks but there are some people who do. We have experience of these matters, and several noble Lords have referred to it. There are vast areas of the countryside where access by night exists at present—on Forestry Commission land, National Trust land and the Lake District to which my noble friend Lord Dubs referred. There is a wide variety of different types of land with different levels of population density and so on.
In all those areas, there has been no serious problem. Indeed, as my noble friend Lord Dubs said, in the Lake District, there are 1,000 square kilometres of open land where there are already statutory access rights 24 hours, day and night. We have not heard one single example of how that existing access has given rise to the kind of problems which have been raised today.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I live in the Lake District and last night, my quad bike was stolen from outside my front door.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, under the amendment that we have just passed, nobody could get close to the noble Lord's front door to steal his bike. Access would not apply within 20 metres of his front door.
In those parts of the country, for 75 years or longer, there have been substantial rights of access. In areas such as the Peak District, there has been access at night well beyond the rights of way. I do not believe that the noble Earl, Lord Peel, is correct in his references to the Lake District. Access rights in the Lake District do not have to be negotiable and they are not restricted to
1006
rights of way. That situation has existed in the Peak District for 50 years and no necessity has been seen for night wardening.
Earl Peel: My Lords, I was not suggesting that for one moment. I was saying that where access has been negotiated on open land away from footpaths, that has been done through the local access authority or through groups of people in conjunction with the owner or occupier so everybody knows what is going on. There is a world of difference between the two.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I do not believe that that represents the position in the Lake District although there is a great deal of co-operation and understanding there. That underlines the point that if effective access management exists, there are relatively few problems.
The noble Earl referred to Denmark. I shall refer to Germany, Sweden and Norway where access by night is not restricted.
As was said earlier, those who are likely to take advantage of the rights of access somewhat resent being regarded as potential criminals. The experience of over half a century does not give any credence to the arguments which have been put forward here today.
The noble Lord, Lord Waddington, referred to rural crime. Crime in countryside areas is largely committed against people who live in villages or small towns where the right of access, the right of way—a pavement or a road or a lane—comes close to the property. That is where the bulk of rural crime takes place. In any event, the figures for rural crime are diminishing, rather than as has been alleged in the House this afternoon.
Those who carry out crime do not need the cover of access rights. Almost by definition, a burglar is a person who does not observe access rights in any event. Arsonists are in the same category. Noble Lords have told the House of incidents of arson which are regrettable, as was the case of the theft of the noble Lord's mountain bike, about which I should have commiserated with him. But those arsonists do not require the cover of access rights in order to carry out their crimes. And they are crimes and they will continue to be so. Rustlers and poachers have, from time immemorial, carried out their crimes in the countryside without any rights of access.
The idea that suddenly giving a right of access means that those crimes will increase seems to me misplaced. Indeed, although I do not make a great point of it, I should say to the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, that, if anything, the fact that more people are around at night may limit that rather than having the opposite effect.
In any event, as I said, we have passed an amendment to provide a 20-metre exclusion zone around dwellings which should give greater security to those who fear the effects of the extension of these rights at night time.
As has been said, it is the case that the police do not regard the exclusion of a right to access during the night to be a sensible move.

1007
The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, referred to the safety of walkers. I accept that in open and sometimes remote countryside there are dangers, serious dangers. But walkers take those risks, whether by day or night, and they must bear the primary responsibility for their own safety. If somebody does something which is foolhardy, then he must accept the consequences of his actions. That has always been the position under the law and it will continue to be the position after this Bill has passed.
I contend that the case for a blanket national ban on access at night has simply not been made. It would seriously curtail the totality of the right of access. In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, referred to 50 per cent. It is slightly less than that but it is a substantial part of the day. That cannot be justified on past experience, on evidence or on an assessment of the kind of people who would make use of that right or on the basis of fear of rural crime.
The noble Baroness was right to say that there must be a balance here but we have already struck that balance in this Bill. This amendment puts the balance the wrong way round. The presumption of the amendment is that night access should be banned, except in those areas where particular circumstances apply. The Bill as it stands would provide for night access, except in those areas where special circumstances arise and that can be dealt with either by exclusion or by by-laws. That seems to me to be sensible. That can deal with areas which are particularly vulnerable or have been subject to serious crime or particularly vulnerable to particular types of crime The Bill provides that flexibility and that is the right way round in this Bill. To turn it on its head and put it the other way round begins to undermine the purpose of the Bill and I do not believe that we can pass the Bill with such a serious restriction on the right which we hope to be giving to the people of this country.
The flexibility in the Bill makes it possible to deal with real problems. The noble Viscount and many of those who have supported him have been dealing with phantom problems. Let us deal with the real problems and provide the flexibility to meet them. But let us not pretend that the access for people who will enjoy nighttime access will cause the kind of problems which have been alluded to by many noble Lords today. I hope that the House will reject the amendment if it is pursued.
Viscount Bledisloe: My Lords, perhaps I may deal with one or two of the points which have been raised. I start by assuring the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, that this amendment is by no means an attempt to wreck this Bill; it is an attempt to find a genuine compromise. I assure the noble Lord that I am a sufficiently experienced draftsman that if I wanted to wreck the Bill, I should find a very much better way of doing it than this.
The substantive point that has been made against the amendment is the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, that there are areas where night access is presently enjoyed and where these problems do not
1008
seem to manifest themselves. But it is because the owners of that land did not see that night access was likely to cause them problems in their circumstances that they have allowed night access. It is to land similar to that that the second part of the amendment is intended to apply.
In Committee the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, spoke about walking up Snowdon at night. I fully accept that the Minister could not manage that in an hour. I could not manage it in a great deal longer. It is just such areas, where experience shows that there will not be problems, that are intended to be covered by the second part of the amendment. Where the countryside body sees that there will not be problems because there is no game or wildlife, livestock or remote dwellings, it will allow night access.
There are other areas where there will be birds breeding, livestock, valuable property and remote houses and where problems will not occur. We cannot say that they have not occurred because where night access presently happens, that is allowed by the owner because he does not fear any problems.
The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, advanced the remarkable proposition that the amendment seeks to detract from a liberty. At present, there is no liberty to have access to such land. The Bill confers a new right and it is a purely neutral question of how large that right should be. If I were seeking to deny night access to land where that had existed for many centuries, the noble Lord would have a point.
This must be the first time that the noble Earl, Lord Russell, has ever been caught out by not having read an amendment before the House. The wording expressly states that the individual does not have to leave the land unless he is presented with unforeseen circumstances. The noble Earl's strained ankle would certainly be an unforeseen and unhappy circumstance.
The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, suggested that one is trying to say that the people exercising the right are potential criminals. The amendment's supporters are claiming nothing of the kind. We are stating that potential criminals exist. At the moment, as soon as they are on one's land, one can challenge them and tell them to go away. When the Bill is enacted, one will not be able to challenge such persons until they have done something towards committing a burglary. The Bill gives such persons a disguise, to enable them to get to the point of committing their crime before being under suspicion. One will not know whether someone is a perfectly legitimate walker or a potential criminal. One cannot even challenge them and tell them to go away.
The noble Lord, Lord Judd, said that the police cannot enforce such a provision. Of course they cannot stop any person going on to land at any time. The existing law of trespass cannot be fully enforced. People trespass even though that is not allowed—but as soon as they do, at least one can seek to turn them off. If they trespass persistently, one can ask the police to help. There will be wardens to help. To say that we should allow anything that the police cannot completely prevent is an argument for legalising a

1009
large number of activities—such as smoking cannabis and speeding. One does not dispense with rules because people will occasionally break them.
The Minister says that my amendment has things the wrong way up, but it does not. Under his system, any owner who fears problems will have to make an application and prove the case—a considerable burden on the owners of small pieces of land or small farms. Under my amendment, the Ramblers' Association or a similar organisation can apply to the Countryside Agency in respect of a whole area suitable for designating for night access. Surely it is more reasonable that the burden should be on them. The problem will not go away and I shall seek the opinion of the House.
7.4 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 19) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 116; Not-Contents, 155.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Hanningfield, L.

Ampthill, L.

Hanson, L.

Arran, E.

Hayhoe, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Henley, L.

Attlee, E.

Higgins, L.

Belstead, L.

Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.

Blaker, L.

Hogg, B.

Bledisloe, V. [Teller]

Hooper, B.

Boardman, L.

Howe, E.

Bowness, L.

Hunt of Wirral, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Hylton, L.

Brookeborough, V.

Jellicoe, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Jopling, L.

Buscombe, B.

Kelvedon, L.

Buxton of Alsa, L.

Kimball, L.

Byford, B.

Kingsland, L.

Caithness, E.

Knight of Collingtree, B.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Laing of Dunphail, L.

Carnarvon, E.

Listowel, E.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Liverpool, E.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Luke, L. [Teller]

Clark of Kempston, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Colwyn, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

Mancroft, L.

Cox, B.

Mar, C.

Craigavon, V.

Marlesford, L.

Cranborne, V.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Dundee, E.

Monro of Langholm, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Monson, L.

Elton, L.

Montrose, D.

Rather, B.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Noakes, B.

Freeman, L.

Northbourne, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Northbrook, L.

Garel-Jones, L.

Northesk, E.

Glenarthur, L.

Norton of Louth, L.

Glentoran, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Goschen, V.

Onslow, E.

Griffiths of Fforestfach, L.

Onslow of Woking, L.

Hambro, L.

Palmer, L.

Hanham, B.

Park of Monmouth, B.

1010

Patten, L.

Skidelsky, L.

Peel, E.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Strange, B.

Rawlings, B.

Strathclyde, L.

Reay, L.

Swinfen, L.

Renton, L.

Tenby, V.

Renton of Mount Harry, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Rotherwick, L.

Vivian, L.

Seccombe, B.

Waddington, L.

Selborne, E.

Walpole, L.

Selsdon, L.

Weatherill, L.

Sharples, B.

Wilcox, B.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

Skelmersdale, L

Young, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Greengross, B.

Addington, L.

Grenfell, L.

Ahmed, L.

Hamwee, B.

Alderdice, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Alli, L.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Amos, B.

Harris of Richmond, B.

Andrews, B.

Harrison, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Haskel, L.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Haskins, L.

Bach, L.

Hayman, B.

Barker, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Barnett, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Berkeley, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Hoyle, L.

Billingham, B.

Hunt of Chesterton, L.

Blackburn, Bp.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Blackstone, B.

Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord Chancellor)

Blease, L.

Borrie, L.

Islwyn, L.

Bragg, L.

Jacobs, L.

Brennan, L.

Jay of Paddington, B. (Lord Privy Seat)

Brett, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Brookman, L.

Judd, L.

Burlison, L.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Carter, L. [Teller]

Kirkhill, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Clement-Jones, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Lipsey, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Lockwood, B.

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Crawley, B.

Ludford, B.

Currie of Marylebone, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller]

Desai, L.

Dholakia, L.

McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

Dixon, L.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L

Dubs, L.

McNally, L.

Elder, L.

Maddock, B.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Ezra, L.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

Falkland, V.

Molloy, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Morgan, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Nicol, B.

Filkin, L.

Northover, B.

Fyfe of Fairfield, L.

Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L.

Gale, B.

Orme, L.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Patel of Blackburn, L.

Goldsmith, L.

Phillips of Sudbury, L.

Goodhart, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Goudie, B.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Razzal, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Rea, L.

Greaves, L.

Redesdale, L.

1011

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Rennard, L.

Thornton, B.

Renwick of Clifton, L.

Tomlinson, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Tope, L.

Roper, L.

Tordoff, L.

Russell, E.

Turnberg, L.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Sandberg, L.

Uddin, B.

Sawyer, I.

Varley, L.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Scott of Needham Market, B.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Serota, B.

Walmsley, B.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Warner, L.

Shepherd, L.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Shutt of Greetland, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L

Simon, V.

Whitty, L.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Wilkins, B.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Young of Old Scone, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
7.15 p.m.
Viscount Bledisloe Viscount Bledisloe moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 2, line 30, at end insert—
("(2A) An authorised person who believes that any person on access land is or has become a trespasser, or has committed any offence, on that land may require that person to give to him full particulars of his identity.
(2B) Any person failing, without reasonable excuse, to comply with the requirement in subsection (2A) shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 1 on the standard scale.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a less contentious amendment. In moving it, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 29 which, once again, is purely a definition provision. It defines, for the purposes of Amendment No. 20, what is an authorised person.
Amendment No. 20 seeks to deal with what can be done with someone who appears to be breaking the rules on access land. This Bill is full of good intentions and rules governing the behaviour of those who exercise their access rights, but there are virtually no teeth for dealing with them. The amendment is a modest attempt to improve the situation. If an authorised person believes that someone on access land has broken a rule or committed an offence he can demand from that person particulars of his identity and it will be an offence for that person to fail to give such particulars unless he has a reasonable excuse.
Surely it must be right that a warden or an owner or his representative can discover who owns a misbehaving dog or who has damaged his wall. I recognise that the amendment still leaves the problem of what the authorised person can do if an offender refuses to answer. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, and I had a discussion in Committee about someone who, when asked to do something, replies with expletives that would be deleted if repeated in the House. That problem will always be there, but this amendment would provide an offence if someone failed to give such particulars.
In Committee I suggested that one should be able to find out who was on access land. That was said to be an infringement of liberties. However, the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, accepted that there might be arguments in relation to someone who had committed an offence or broken the rules.
I hope that the Government recognise that those who need to enforce the rules will need help and that they should therefore accept the amendment. There is no point in having schedules in the Bill full of things that one should not do if nothing can be done effectively about someone who breaks the rules. If it is not possible to find out who the person is, not even the first steps can be taken to do anything about it. I beg to move.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I support the amendment. Remembering what the noble Baroness said, I shall not cover past ground. However, this is an important amendment. Many noble Lords are concerned that there may be circumstances in which people should be taken to task and there is little enforcement in the Bill. If the amendment is not accepted by the Government, it begs the question: how will sanctions be imposed to obtain a balance between those who are on access land lawfully and those who are not?
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, I support the amendment. It is the crucial amendment of the Bill. If there is no way to enforce the by-laws and the regulations, the Bill is manifestly unfair. I believe that legislation is liable to fail if it is perceived by one party or another to be manifestly unjust. If there is no way of enforcing the rules for the use of access it will be manifestly unjust.
Baroness Hamwee: We on these Benches are unhappy with this amendment. We must be careful when creating new criminal offences. I draw the distinction between a criminal offence, which this amendment seeks to include in the Bill, and the position under the civil law between different parties. The two amendments together, particularly given the criminal nature of subsection (2B) as proposed, would amount to creating a police force or possibly an excuse for vigilantes from which I am sure noble Lords would want to distance themselves. I take some of the points made by the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, about seeking a balance and avoiding confrontation rather than encouraging it. I fear, however, that the amendment might have the contrary effect and we cannot support it.
Lord Jopling: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, will she be kind enough to answer the points made by the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe? How would she deal with the situation in which an authorised person had found someone on his land who was a trespasser or who had committed an offence? How can the authorised person do something about

1013
that? It is not good enough for the noble Baroness to say, "We don't like it". She must tell the House how she and her party would deal with such a situation.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I drew a clear distinction between the criminal and civil situation. I believe that this situation is no different from someone living in an urban area finding a trespasser in the garden.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, perhaps I may place on record the fact that at no stage have I criticised the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, who has not repeated herself—unlike one or two other noble Lords!
In Committee, we debated whether wardens, landowners and their agents should be able to request identification from people on access land. The Government's position has not changed in response to this amendment.
We do not believe it is right that such "authorised persons", if they happen to believe that a person is a trespasser or has committed an offence, should be able to require such information to be provided. That would be contrary to the position not only in public places, such as on the street, but also when someone trespasses (or indeed commits an offence) not only in someone's garden, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said, but in a noble Lord's home.
If someone has lost the statutory right, they may be treated as a trespasser in the normal way. If someone has committed an offence, he will lose the statutory right but can also be dealt with in the usual way by the authorities. No one, apart from the police in certain circumstances, can require identification from someone in the street, or in his home, even when that person has committed an offence. We do not believe that an exception should now be made for access land.
The noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, and the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, referred to situations in which people were being extremely difficult. The noble Viscount referred to a person who responded with a range of expletives. He may agree that if one were to ask such a person for his name his response could be a further expletive.
Viscount Bledisloe: My Lords, I find the Government's response deeply unsatisfactory. In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, said that he had considerable sympathy with the position and that where an offence had been committed there was an argument in favour of such a provision. In certain circumstances, one can ask another person for his identity. If you are involved in a car accident, you are required to exchange particulars, even though you may be wholly innocent of fault. If someone is in your house unlawfully, you can physically detain him until the police arrive and find out who he is. It is not good enough merely to say, "You are not meant to let your dog run wild". When I find a dog running wild, I cannot find out to whom it belongs even though it is savaging my land and has caused damage.
1014
The provision is a recipe for physical violence because the only thing the owner is entitled to do is to find a couple of other people, pick the chap up and physically throw him off the land. I do not believe that the Government's desire is that in such circumstances people should come to fisticuffs. Those who do not like the amendment must surely recognise that they must come forward with action that the warden or owner can take if he finds someone misbehaving who will not stop or give his name. Do the Government really expect violence to take place and the person to be forcibly ejected?
The position is deeply unsatisfactory and I hope that the Government will think of something to do about it. I shall return to the matter in some form or another at Third Reading but, for the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 2, line 35, leave out subsection (4) and insert—
("(4) If a person becomes a trespasser on any access land by failing to comply with—

(a) subsection (1)(a),

(b) the general restrictions in Schedule 2, or

(c) any other restrictions imposed in relation to the land under Chapter II,

he may not, within 72 hours after leaving that land, exercise his right under subsection (1) to enter that land again or to enter other land in the same ownership.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we debated in Committee whether wardens or landowners and their agents should be able to request identification—I beg your pardon, I am reading the wrong brief! That has not happened to me for years!
We gave an undertaking in Committee—does that sound better?—to consider the case for extending the period during which the statutory right is lost where someone breaches a restriction. We have considered the matter very carefully. We are aware that breaches of restrictions may well be very minor—for example, feeding a handful of grass to a horse—but we accept that in order properly to protect the interests and the needs of those owning and managing the land, and effectively to discourage people from breaching the restrictions, we should extend the period for which the statutory right is lost.
The amendment will ensure that a user who fails to comply with subsection (1)(a) by damaging a wall, fence and so on, or who breaches a Schedule 2 restriction or any other restriction imposed under Chapter II, will lose the statutory right for 72 hours after leaving the land. We believe that 72 hours is a reasonable time for the right to be lost in such circumstances.
We have always emphasised that those exercising the new right of access should be responsible and this amendment is intended to promote that message.
Perhaps for the convenience of the House I may respond to Amendment No. 21A, which is an amendment to Amendment No. 21. The amendment

1015
would mean that someone in breach of a restriction would lose the right of access to all access land, not just land in the same ownership.
As we explained in Committee, we do not believe that someone who breaches a restriction, perhaps to trivial effect, and thereby becomes a trespasser should lose the right of access to all access land. On a practical level, it would simply not be possible to enforce that. There is a good chance that if a person is asked to leave an area of access land because he has breached a restriction, should he return in the next 72 hours he will be identified by the owner, or the owner's agent, and challenged. But if he lost his right of access to all access land, it is unlikely—indeed, impossible—that anyone would even know that he had breached a restriction on other land, and therefore would have no reason to ask him to leave. Even the walker might not know of his breach if the landowner of the land on which the breach took place was not bothered by it and allowed the person to remain on the land.
If a walker who has been in breach moves on to other land in different ownership, he must continue to abide by the restrictions or he will lose his right of access to that land, too. That is a practical requirement which both landowners and walkers will be able to understand.
Opposition Amendment No. 22 is covered by Amendment No. 21. I beg to move.
7.30 p.m.
Baroness Byford Baroness Byford moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 21, Amendment No. 21A:
Line 9, leave out ("other land in the same ownership") and insert ("any other access land").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I thank the Government for considering our earlier amendments and tabling Amendment No. 21. I believe that a period of 72 hours makes good sense. The noble Lord has responded to Amendment No. 21A. While I understand the direction from which the noble Lord comes, the problem, which I explained to the Minister recently, is that a person will not know on which land he is walking. Amendment No. 21A means that the walker will clearly know that he is not allowed on any access land for 72 hours, which I believe is at least half a step forward compared with the argument just put forward by the Minister. The noble Lord said that that would not be enforceable because nobody would know on which land he should or should not be. However, I thought that this Bill sought to place responsibility on people who intended to use access land. The walker would know that he was not supposed to be on the land for the next three days. While I have listened to the Minister with great interest, I shall reflect upon the matter, and I hope that the noble Lord will do likewise.
I am aware that my amendment does not provide a total solution to the problem, but at least a person who has committed an offence and is told not to go onto the land for 72 hours—whether or not he ignores it is up
1016
to him—knows that he should not be on any access land for that period. We believe that that is a sensible step. I beg to move.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Turner of Camden): My Lords, I must inform noble Lords that if Amendment No. 21 is agreed to because of preemption I cannot call Amendment No. 22.
Baroness Young of Old Scone: My Lords, I add my support to Amendment No. 21. I welcome the extension of the exclusion to 72 hours with respect to minor infringements in Schedule 2. The amendment provides a more substantial exclusion which is a serious deterrent and a demonstration, which is otherwise missing, that infringements are regarded with a degree of seriousness. There are other issues about penalties which the 72-hour exclusion does not meet, and I intend to deal with those in Amendments Nos. 23 and 25. However, I thank the Minister for going as far as he has.
Lord Mancroft: My Lords, I join the noble Baroness, Lady Young, in thanking the Government for tabling this amendment and recognising the issues concerning sanctions that I and my noble friends raised at Committee stage. Undoubtedly, a 72-hour exclusion period is a great improvement on 24 hours because it extends over the long weekend, and we are grateful to the Government for taking that step. It would be helpful if the steps went slightly further, but one can perhaps always say that. However, my noble friend's amendment is a further step in the right direction.
I take on board the Minister's observation that to ban people from all access land for 72 hours may be unenforceable. All such sanctions carry with them the possibility of unenforceability. However, if a 72-hour exclusion from all access land is unenforceable, the reality is that all the sanctions under the Bill, and the rules and regulations attached to them, are also unenforceable. The real problem with this Bill is not the theory behind it but its enforceability (if that is the right word) and how it will work on the ground. Therefore, the greatest concern is that the charge of unenforceability can be levelled at virtually every area of the Bill. Nevertheless, on this occasion I thank the Minister for tabling the amendment.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, we on these Benches also warmly welcome the Government's move in this direction, for which we pressed in Committee.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 21A.
Amendment No. 21A, as an amendment to Amendment No. 21, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 21 I should have spoken also to Amendment No. 27 which is purely consequential. I shall move that amendment when we reach the

1017
appropriate point. In addition, the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, should not think that this is a further step in any direction as far as concerns the Government.
On Question, Amendment No. 21 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 22 not moved.]
Lord Burlison: My Lords, I beg to move that consideration on Report be now adjourned. In moving this Motion, I suggest that Report stage begin again not before 8.35 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Hepatitis C
7.35 p.m.
Earl Howe Earl Howe rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what plans they have to improve the care and treatment of patients with hepatitis C.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this Question has been triggered by a series of briefings given to me recently by the British Liver Trust. Its work, together with some academic research to which I have had private access, leads me to conclude that there is a great deal to be done before the service provided by the NHS to patients with hepatitis C, or to those who are suspected of having it, can be considered in any way satisfactory.
I begin with some factual background. Hepatitis C is what might be termed a "new" disease. As a virus it was separately identified only in 1989, although it is known to have existed in various parts of the world long before that. The World Health Organisation estimates that more than 170 million people worldwide may be infected with it. In Asia and parts of Africa, and especially in Egypt, its prevalence is 10 per cent or more. In the UK the best and most recent estimates are that it affects approximately 0.7 per cent of the population, equal to perhaps 400,000 people. That figure is only a rough guess based on extrapolations. The true figure could be lower or, more likely, a great deal higher. I shall return to that issue in a moment.
The hepatitis C virus, or HCV, is a blood-borne infection. There are thought to be at least six strains of the virus, each with sub-strains numbering about 40. Over the course of time these strains may change spontaneously. It is partly for this reason that to date no vaccine for hepatitis C has been developed. It is commonly agreed that the largest single transmission route is through intravenous drug misuse. There are, however, many others, including transfusions of contaminated blood before the introduction of screening procedures and maternal transmission in pregnancy. HCV, therefore, cuts right across the social spectrum. In prisons where the incidence of HCV is especially high, transmission occurs not only through the re-use of needles among drug-users but also from the sharing of items such as razors and toothbrushes which may draw blood.
The incubation period of the disease is long. A large percentage of people who develop hepatitis C today are in their 40s and will probably have contracted it 20 or more years ago. It is this feature of HCV which is particularly significant in terms of healthcare planning. Even if all the routes of transmission were somehow to be closed off tomorrow, we would still face the prospect of large numbers of cases emerging over the next 10 to 20 years.
What implications does this have for the NHS? The good news, such as it is, is that hepatitis C is by no means always fatal. Indeed in 20 per cent of cases it disappears spontaneously. However, in the other 80 per cent of cases, the vast majority of those infected will go on to develop a long-term chronic illness. Some 20 per cent will contract cirrhosis of the liver, and of those half will develop liver cancer. Even among those less severely affected the symptoms of the disease can be debilitating—fatigue, depression, lethargy and a resultant poor quality of life are common. If, as some specialists predict, we can expect to see many hundreds of thousands of people needing treatment for hepatitis C over the next decade, the costs to the National Health Service are likely to be significant.
Combination therapy, involving Interferon and Ribavirin, costs some £9,600 per annum per patient. Although it is able to cure up to 40 per cent of patients, the majority of health authorities either do not provide it at all or provide it on a limited and inadequate scale. Indeed, in a survey conducted by the British Liver Trust in 1998, it was found that only a fifth of health authorities had any sort of strategy for tackling HCV, and fewer than one third had a budget for treating it.
The postcode lottery is therefore alive and kicking with hepatitis C. In part, that is a simple reflection of inadequate funding. It is also explained by uncertainty among GPs and health authorities about the cost-effectiveness of combination therapy. That uncertainty should now to be banished in the light of the guidance published this week by NICE. The NICE guidance, though effectively only re-stating the established evidence about the clinical effectiveness of combination treatment, is nevertheless very welcome.
What are at stake, of course, are not simply the direct benefits that combination therapy can bring to patients. Timely drug treatment reduces the long-term costs of care. In particular, it can reduce the need for liver transplants, which can cost up to £50,000 per patient, excluding follow-up medication. It also mitigates the high cost of providing care for patients who develop advanced liver disease and associated complications. It is disappointing that these issues appear not to have been examined by NICE as part of their evaluation.
The idea, however, that the NICE guidance will somehow solve the postcode lottery is, I fear, overoptimistic. Health authorities will still need to prioritise funding to meet the cost of treatment. Those costs have been estimated by NICE at £18 million per annum initially. That figure excludes the associated costs for pathology, virology, radiology and specialist nursing. The verdict of every reputable HCV specialist

1019
is that spending money early will save a great deal more money later. Yet we have to ask what incentive a health authority has to invest those very considerable sums. One deterrent, incidentally, is that the costs of liver transplants, unlike combination treatment, are funded centrally.
On this side of the House we believe that the barrier to funding relatively expensive drug therapies such as Interferon alpha and Ribavirin could he eliminated by the creation of a central funding mechanism for such exceptional medicines, quite separate from health authority budgets. But if that is not to happen, then the very least that is needed is clear guidance from government to health authorities to make the therapy widely available.
But therapy is only one aspect of the problem. There is a woeful lack of proper facilities in many areas to test and counsel HCV patients. There is no common protocol to which health authorities work in looking after and managing such patients, both before and after testing One important improvement, mentioned by NICE, would be the wider availability of confidential testing facilities, of the kind that currently exist for HIV. It is thought that many people are deterred from seeking a test for HCV because it will feature on their medical record. That in turn will stigmatise them in their prospects for employment, life insurance and a mortgage. It will also have an effect on personal relationships. As a result it is likely that many people whose condition could otherwise be arrested are not even being diagnosed.
Just as there is no uniform pattern throughout the country in the provision of testing facilities, so too there are very varied procedures followed for the counselling of patients. The way in which patients are presented with their test results is often insensitive and ill-thought through in the extreme. A great many receive no advance preparation for what they are about to hear and no advice about it afterwards. When so much is at stake, that cannot be a satisfactory way of proceeding. As NICE says explicitly in paragraph 5.21:
"Confidential HCV testing and counselling should he made available whether or not treatment is initiated."
The other area crying out for funding is research. There is much about HCV that remains unknown. Some aspects of the pathogenesis of HCV are still hidden. The precise mechanisms by which HCV causes liver cancer have not been identified. We still need a simple, cost-effective and reliable diagnostic assay test, both for the initial detection of HCV and for monitoring the disease as it progresses. There are still no firm data on the susceptibility of HCV to disinfecting agents, which is important bearing in mind that the virus, unlike HIV for example, can survive many hours outside the body. Perhaps the Minister can tell the House what research is currently being conducted in any of those areas.
It is all too easy to stand in your Lordships' House and sound alarmist. I never have any wish to do that. Nevertheless, when medical experts tell us that, "We are poised on the brink of an epidemic, which could have far wider ranging implications than AIDS", we
1020
have a duty to pay close attention. Those were the recent words of Dr William Rosenberg, senior lecturer in medicine and consultant physician at Southampton General Hospital and the University of Southampton.
There are other experts who predict that in two or three years' time, hepatitis C will outstrip AIDS as the most common cause of death in early and mid-life. The NHS needs not just guidance from NICE but a coordinated strategy. Variations in facilities and inappropriate management procedures need to be ironed out.
To that end, I would welcome the Minister's comments on the merits of trying to devise a national protocol for the management of HCV, building on the NICE guidance; perhaps in the first instance by adopting the guidelines issued by the European Association for the Study of the Liver. A linked, but separate, strategy needs to be adopted in the Prison Service. Overarching all of that, there has to be a clear policy on educating the public about the risks of HCV and about prevention.
All this amounts to a great deal. I make no apology for listing what needs to be done, because the gaps in the provision of services are currently wide. But I hope, at the very least, that the Minister will say that he shares my perception of this issue as one of the most pressing and least well-resourced of any now facing the National Health Service. I dare to hope, too, that this debate will serve to add impetus to the Government's efforts to iron out those inequalities in healthcare provision on which the Minister and his colleagues have rightly laid such emphasis.
7.48 p.m.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Howe, for giving your Lordships the opportunity of discussing the hepatitis C virus tonight, and for the noble Earl's most informative speech.
When I said to one of the Doorkeepers last night that we would be discussing HCV tonight, he said, "I know A and B, but what is C?" Does the Minister think that there should be more health education on this subject? Should not the public be made more aware of this worldwide virus? Prevention is better than cure, as cure seems difficult.
There are many injecting drug addicts past and present who are HCV positive. People who go in for body piercing and tattooing can also be at risk. All health workers involved with taking blood or working with needles are at risk of needle stick infection. HCV can lie in the body for up to 30 years and therefore positive people can be at risk of infecting others. Can the Minister tell the House what development and progress there is on a vaccine for HCV?
When I broke my back and had a severe internal haemorrhage, I had several blood transfusions, for which I was very grateful as they saved my life. Years later I had to have blood transfusions again, and the third time it was discovered that my blood group had changed from negative to positive. I can assure your Lordships that I was very uneasy when that happened.

1021
The last transfusion I had was around the time when HIV presented in the UK and hepatitis C was being recognised. Some years later, because I had had blood, I requested a blood test for HCV. It was not an easy process. The nurse involved asked me what I would do if I was positive. I told her, "At least I would know". I hope that the process of testing and counselling has improved.
From what I have heard there seems to be no national strategy for dealing with hepatitis C and no national guidelines on the management and treatment of those infected. This complete lack of planning of HCV services throughout the UK results in very variable standards of management and care after diagnosis for any patient with hepatitis C. In some areas of the UK patients have to wait months or years with hepatitis C to see a hepatologist or HCV specialist and there are very few counselling and support services.
Hepatitis C is difficult to treat. Interferon and Ribavirin combination therapy was licensed last year and has been shown to clear the virus in about 30 per cent of cases. It is a highly unpleasant treatment to take, however, and the decision to start therapy seems never an easy one. Currently, many health authorities are denying the treatment to people with HCV on funding grounds, thus removing any hope of a cure.
With so many difficult problems facing our National Health Service, particularly the shortage of skilled staff, can the Minister say how the National Blood Service is coping? Has it enough skilled technicians and doctors to ensure that blood and blood products are safe from viruses such as HCV? Are the Government planning a review of the services so that the public will have confidence in this vitally important area?
I know a charming man who is a haemophiliac with HCV. He is married, working and has three young children and is taking part in trials. Can the Minister give an update on the drug trials and say which are the most successful combination therapies with as few side effects as possible? Is it a fact that the response is four times higher with Interferon Alpha with polyethylene glycol than other combinations? Does the noble Lord agree that NICE should make it clear that its conclusions may not be appropriate in the face of new therapeutic agents?
A recent European statement recommended that combination therapies should be offered to all previously untreated individuals, provided they had no contra-indications. It came from the International Consensus Conference on Hepatitis C in Paris in 1999. Does the Minister believe, like others do, that each health authority should work to a protocol in respect of the way it handles patients with HCV? Will the Government send out guidelines so that the services for patients with hepatitis C virus is a truly national one?
Tonight we are talking about patients with a serious condition resulting in haemolytic anaemia, fatigue, flu-like symptoms, bone marrow suppression and liver
1022
cancer and liver function failure. I hope that this debate will do something to help to improve their care and treatment.
7.55 p.m.
Lord Colwyn: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Howe has raised an important issue. As he said, hepatitis C virus infection is widespread, with an estimated 3 per cent of the world population being infected. Acute infection is usually mild but chronicity develops in as many as 70 per cent of patients, of whom 20 per cent will eventually develop cirrhosis and between 1 and 4 per cent will develop hepatocellular carcinoma.
The virus has become a major issue with the media, with the focus on haemophiliacs and whether or not HCV testing in blood donors was delayed unnecessarily. But that is not the issue in this debate. Like the AIDS virus, hepatitis C virus has an imagined stigma. Some say that it is a dangerous virus on the loose, yet others say that its effects on the liver progress only very slowly and infection is asymptomatic in most patients. Many who are infected may never be detected and diagnosis is difficult as the concentration of HCV antigens in the sera of patients is so low that testing has to be undertaken in specialist referral centres.
Groups of people who are at high risk of hepatitis C infection are well defined. As I have just mentioned, haemophiliacs have an 80 per cent risk, followed by IV drug abusers at 50 to 75 per cent and haemodialysis patients at 2 to 5 per cent. There are also patients in high risk countries and patients who have multiple transfusions.
Although I am concerned that the diagnosis and treatment for patients with hepatitis C should be of the highest priority, I have a more selfish attitude in that I am equally concerned about the risk to healthcare workers who will be treating infected patients, largely without any knowledge of that infection. I declare my interest as a practising dentist working with patients who may indeed have hepatitis C. Research has shown that dentists who have not been immunised are three times more likely to acquire HBV infection than the general population and that non-immune surgeons are six times more likely to acquire the infection than is the case in the general population.
The risk to healthcare workers is low, but annually between 2 and 4 per cent of new HCV infections occur in this group. The first known case of occupational mucosal transmission of HCV involved a nurse who was splashed in the face and eyes by blood. HCV has been detected in the saliva of patients with chronic hepatitis who are undergoing dental treatment. There is a report of HCV being transmitted by saliva in a human bite. But there is little epidemiological data to suggest that saliva is a major mode of transmission. However, I am delighted to be able to say that studies show that the risk of HCV infection through the practice of dentistry generally is low.
The incidence of sero-conversion to HCV after needle stick injury exposure to HCV-infected blood ranges from 0 to 10 per cent and averages at about

1023
2 per cent. I do not know what the average number of needle stick injuries to dentists and doctors is in this country, but I suppose that it happens to me about once a year. Sadly, rubber gloves are no protection against some of the instruments and needles that we use.
Currently, there is no vaccine for HCV and the chance of developing one is complicated by the virus's diversity and ability to mutate. Perhaps I may follow up the question of the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, and ask whether the Minister can update us on any of the latest work in this field.
The problem posed to the dental team for care of HCV patients is twofold. First, the prevention of the transmission of HCV from patients who knowingly or unknowingly are carriers of the virus to other patients, staff and dentists in the dental care setting and, secondly, the management of the patient with a degree of impaired hepatic function—however rare this may be.
The vast majority—probably all practising dentists in the UK—are aware that all patients present some potential infectious risk. Many patients are unaware of their condition and cannot be reliably identified by even the most comprehensive medical history. In view of this, a system of dental delivery is adopted for all patients which prevents the possibility of disease transmission in the dental environment. Recommendations on the prevention of cross infection are issued by the General Dental Council, the British Dental Association and the indemnity providers, of one of which I have the honour to be chairman.
I hope that the Minister will take this opportunity to reassure dentists and other healthcare workers that, with efficient cross infection control, it is most unlikely that there would be any transfer of the virus and that it is perfectly safe to treat patients with hepatitis C. This morning, I happened to see Professor Roger Williams, who asked me to stress this point. It is extremely important.
Patients who do have impaired hepatic function should be treated following consultation with their general medical practitioner as there are possibilities of a potential for post-operative bleeding and for the interaction of some commonly used drugs which are metabolised in the liver.
I am sure that the Minister will confirm the announcement by NICE, which I read in The Times this morning, that patients with HCV—and I presume this applies only to those with symptoms of liver damage—will be able to be treated with Ribavirin and Interferon alpha within the NHS. Sadly, there is a long list of contraindications for Interferon treatment and it is probable that those patients most likely to respond are those least likely to need immediate treatment.
A recent survey of patients with HCV in south Australia, published in the Australian Dental Journal this year, shows that there is a marked discrepancy between the oral health of those infected and a comparison group. I shall not go into the details of the various dental problems, but there is certainly a need
1024
for priority delivery of dental care which must incorporate a strong preventive programme and oral health education component in order to sustain health improvement. I am sure that the Minister will be able to confirm that the dental strategy has taken these priorities into account. As we passed in the corridor earlier, the Minister asked me to endorse the dental strategy. Of course I endorse it and I hope that it will deliver exactly what we are asking for this evening.
In conclusion, as a member of the Science and Technology sub-committee looking at complementary and alternative medicine and with my head full of information about homeopathics and herbal medicines, perhaps I may mention the relevance of natural medicine to patients with HCV. Despite longstanding scepticism towards the value of vitamin supplements on the part of the conventional medical establishment, there is currently a shift towards acceptance of the need for patients with illnesses such as HCV to take supplements to address proven likely deficiencies.
The use of botanicals can offer tissue support, the prevention of necrosis of liver cells, provide alternative pathways of metabolism to circumvent inflammation and boost the immune system. Particular botanical phyto-chemical constituents such as silymarin from the milk thistle plant have demonstrated an ability to inhibit viral reproduction, support the immune system and regenerate hepatic cells. I thought that the Minister would like to have that information!
8.4 p.m.
Lord Turnberg: My Lords, I am most grateful to noble Lords for allowing me to speak at this point in the debate and, of course, I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Howe, for bringing forward this important matter in the House. I understand that I am allowed to make only one point in the two or three minutes which I have been given. I wish therefore simply to stress the importance of prevention in the control of this disease.
Preventive measures do work. We have seen already that transmission of the disease through blood transfusions and blood products has been virtually eradicated by testing blood donors. We also have good evidence that needle exchange schemes reduce quite markedly transmission among intravenous drug abusers. But here the record is not nearly so good. Experience in other countries suggests that we could do much better here if we invested more in needle exchange schemes, a point which I am sure that my noble friend will take on board.
There are preventive measures which can be taken to reduce transmission of the virus from infected mothers to their babies at birth. This requires surveillance and testing of at-risk mothers in the ante-natal period and the use of precautionary efforts at the time of birth.
I should say, also, that if we agree that prevention is important—as I am sure noble Lords will—then we must know more about the prevalence of the infection in the at-risk population. How else would we know where to focus our efforts? I speak here from the perspective of chairman of the Public Health

1025
Laboratory Service Board, an interest that I should declare. Although testing and surveillance of the at-risk population is cheap compared with the costs of treatment, funding for surveillance would be money well spent and deserves the investment that is needed if we are to manage this disease optimally.
A part of that surveillance testing is the increasing requirement to test for specific sub-types or genotypes of the virus, each of which has somewhat different clinical effects and plays an important part in determining the length of time for which patients need treatment. All of that speaks for the need for high quality genotype testing and surveillance at both local and national levels as an important part of the prevention and treatment of hepatitis C disease. I hope that my noble friend will agree with that.
8.7 p.m.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Howe, on raising the issue of HCV in this debate tonight. At the same time I should like to pay tribute to C Change and Action on Hepatitis C, who have done so much to move the subject of HCV up the political agenda. We have heard four extremely authoritative speeches. An extremely cogent case has been made out in a number of areas related to HCV. All that I can do is to add a counterpoint to the themes elicited by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and other noble Lords who have spoken in the debate.
The news about the determination by NICE on the combination therapy of Interferon alpha and Ribavirin has been most welcome. However, that must not obscure the fact that there is still a range of issues, that we have discussed today, along with steps to be taken which are of crucial importance to HCV patients and, indeed, to those who may be diagnosed in the future, which are almost as important as the actual treatment given to patients.
Even in respect of yesterday's decision, consultants such as Dr Graham Foster of St. Mary's Hospital and Dr William Rosenberg of Southampton University Hospital have gone on record to say that they are worried that health authorities may not prioritise funding to meet the NICE recommendations. I hope that, during the course of his speech, the Minister will be able to give assurances about the timing of funding becoming available for this treatment.
As we have heard, the incidence of hepatitis C appears to be much higher than previously thought. It is now estimated to affect some 0.7 per cent of the population, or between 200,000 and 600,000 people in the UK. This compares with 1.8 per cent in the US and, indeed, some 170 million people worldwide who are reckoned to be infected.
Those deriving hepatitis C from blood transfusions and infected blood products number some 7,000 in total. As we have heard, the key route nowadays for the majority of hepatitis C sufferers, is from injecting drug use. However, it also occurs from other causes
1026
such as tattooing and body piercing. Eighty-five per cent of those infected develop chronic disease. We have been told that some 30 per cent will die of it.
The time-lag is long, some 20 to 25 years from the initial infection to when the symptoms appear. This means that it is people in their forties who are showing the symptoms of their infection which probably derived from drug use in their twenties.
A report in the journal, Gut, in July of this year, described research carried out between 1997 and 1999 among 4,825 women in the St. Mary's Hospital antenatal clinic. It showed that one in 100 women were infected with hepatitis C. This implies that we have a slightly harder figure than the range of 200,000 to 600,000. It implies that 400,000 people in the UK may be infected. We have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Turnberg, the importance of ante-natal screening.
What needs to be done? As the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and campaigners have made clear, a national strategy—as exists in many other European countries and Australia, and as is being formulated in the USA—is required, together with its counterparts in local trusts and health authorities. A recent survey by the British Liver Trust showed that only 20 per cent of hospital trusts appear to have a strategy for hepatitis C. Only 6.7 per cent of the trusts surveyed thought that HCV was a high social and health priority.
Setting a national strategy means establishing the prevalence of HCV, an issue to which many noble Lords have alluded; it means monitoring the epidemic—because that is indeed what it is; it means establishing the most effective ways of preventing further infection; it means ensuring proper diagnosis; it means ensuring appropriate treatment; and it means ensuring appropriate social support and care.
More research is needed. I believe that the department has allocated only about £500,000 for research into HCV and injecting drug use. If we are faced with an epidemic of this proportion, does not the Minister agree that we need far more resource devoted to research?
In terms of prevention—which is vital because 40 per cent of all liver cancer is caused by hepatitis C—as the noble Lord, Lord Turnberg, and the noble Earl, Lord Howe, said, there must be the institution of confidential counselling, as there is with HIV testing and as is recommended by NICE. It is vital that we identify sufferers. The French plan to identify 85 per cent of sufferers within the next two years. We appear to have no such plan, according to an Answer to a Parliamentary Question in July this year. Why not?
As to treatment, it is vital that hepatitis C sufferers receive the appropriate treatment, not only because there are effective treatments but because the ultimate end result of hepatitis C—liver disease and cancer—will be far more expensive to care for in terms of treatment and transplants. As some noble Lords have mentioned, the cost could be as high as £9 billion. There is a great shortage of donor organs in any event, as your Lordships will be aware.

1027
To ensure the appropriate treatment there must be treatment protocols, perhaps in the form of national guidance or perhaps a national service framework. If NICIE had the resources—which it currently clearly does not—this would be an appropriate task for it. The clinical guidance has been promised for three years, yet we appear to be no closer to it than we were.
But, above all, the appropriate resources must be made available by the health authorities and trusts. It has been noticeable how influential the NICE appraisal of taxanes has been and how health authorities have responded with an appropriate allocation of resources to pay for treatment for breast and ovarian cancer. I hope that they will do likewise after the current NICE guidance and that budgets of between £7,000 and £12,000 for a course of treatment of combination therapy can be found for appropriate patients. I hope that the Minister will give those much needed assurances about the funding which must follow if NICE's guidance is to mean anything. Will the Minister grasp the nettle? I look forward to his response.
8.13 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Howe, for initiating the debate and I appreciate the contributions made by noble Lords. It has been a wholly constructive debate.
Let me say at once to the noble Earl, in particular, and to other noble Lords that I fully accept the argument that effective healthcare services are needed now for patients with hepatitis C, or HCV as it is commonly known. I also fully accept that if it is not actively tack led HCV may become a significant health problem in the future. I agree with the noble Earl that there is much to be done.
The stark facts, as the noble Earl suggested, are that HCV is the biggest cause of chronic liver disease. Some 250,000 people may be infected in this country. Both the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, posed questions about the estimated prevalence and incidence of hepatitis C in the UK. My understanding from the current information available to the department is that the prevalence of chronic carriage of hepatitis C may be around 0.5 per cent of the general population—that is, about 300,000 people in the UK and 250,000 people in England.
The incidence of hepatitis C is not known as the virus is usually acquired without symptom. There is also likely to be an increase in the diagnosis of hepatitis C in the next 110 years as individuals who have carried the virus for some time are identified through the wider testing of groups which have been at risk.
I know that data published in the medical journal, Gut, on 18th July reported a hepatitis C prevalence of 0.8 per cent in the population of pregnant women in inner London. However, the advice I have received is that estimates of such infections based on inner cities, where there may be clusters of people at higher risk due to injecting drug use, may not be representative of the country as a whole. My understanding is that surveys of pregnant women have reported a prevalence as low
1028
as 0.2 per cent in other parts of the country. This leads to the general conclusion that the prevalence in the country as a whole may be around 0.5 per cent.
As the noble Earl said, for most patients the virus manifests itself as a chronic illness with life-long implications. All too often patients with HCV are the most vulnerable members of society. In addition to counselling and support services, there are currently only two drug therapies licensed for treatment. Of course, with little chance of a vaccine being developed to prevent infection, HCV prevalence is likely to increase.
On the issue of vaccination, to which both the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, and the noble Lord, Lord Colwyn, referred, my understanding is that there is currently no vaccine to protect against hepatitis infection. Sadly, it seems unlikely that there will be one in the near future. As the noble Lord suggested, as the virus is known to mutate at a particularly rapid rate, this makes the development of an effective vaccine extremely difficult. A number of centres around the world are involved in research into a vaccine. We must hope that eventually there will be a successful outcome. But we certainly cannot plan our, future services on that basis.
People who became infected years ago without realising it are now presenting with liver disease. HCV infects the blood. Injecting drug users, health workers and those who received blood transfusions before screening was introduced are potentially at risk. Once transmitted, the virus may quickly cause inflammation of the liver, an acute illness from which people recover. But, as has been suggested, for perhaps 80 per cent of those people the infection becomes chronic and has longer term health implications.
People with chronic HCV infection can remain virtually symptomless for many years, but during this time the liver becomes inflamed and damaged. If not treated, again as has been suggested, it may eventually progress to severe liver disease or occasionally liver cancer, causing the liver to fail and the patient to require a transplant.
Of course we need to talk about treatment and care, but prevention is crucial. I agree with my noble friend Lord Turnberg on that. In relation to blood, the risk of transmission of hepatitis C via blood donations has been virtually eliminated by the screening of blood donors for antibodies to the hepatitis C virus and the treatment of blood products. I hope that answers the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham.
Again as my noble friend suggested, needle exchange schemes can play a very important role in hepatitis C prevention. We are working to improve availability through shared care schemes and by liaising closely with health authorities. We have issued guidance to the NHS on the purchasing of services for and the clinical management of injecting drug misusers, which includes advice about hepatitis C. I want to assure noble Lords that further work is planned to strengthen the current activity by reminding health authorities of the importance of measures to tackle hepatitis C.

1029
Prevention is vital; so are treatment and cure. I listened with great interest to the remarks in relation to counselling and testing. I fully acknowledge that the support provided by counsellors is invaluable. They may come from a wide variety of backgrounds: some may be specialists in drug misuse; others may have a background in other diseases such as haemophilia, which has close ties with HCV.
Picking up on the NICE recommendations in relation to counselling and advice services, where NICE recommended that they be reviewed I can assure noble Lords that we shall indeed do that. I accept the challenge to introduce a co-ordinated approach. The same goes for issues relating to testing. We accept the need to review our current policies and arrangements on testing—again, as recommended by NICE. I hope that that will lead to a more co-ordinated response in the future.
So far as concerns treatment with drugs, it is by no means the perfect solution. Interferon monotherapy and combination therapy, where Ribavirin is added, have unpleasant side effects and may not be suitable for all patients. It was clear to the Government that the NHS needed guidance to ensure that patients gained maximum benefit from the available treatments. That was why NICE was asked to investigate the use of combination therapy as a matter of urgency. That guidance was published yesterday.
Briefly, combination therapy is recommended as the treatment of first choice for moderate to severe HCV in the following categories: previously untreated patients and those patients treated with Interferon monotherapy who responded but then relapsed. There are many other recommendations in the NICE guidance and I commend those guidelines to noble Lords. But I accept the key question that has been raised in relation to funding.
The experience so far, as the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, suggested, is that NICE guidelines will be followed by health authorities. That is the whole purpose of NICE: to ensure a uniform response throughout the National Health Service. I am not convinced about a central funding mechanism; I have severe doubts about its practicality. I also believe that it would run the risk of absolving health authorities from making local decisions and from responsibilities that they ought to be carrying.
The additional resources that we have put into the health service this year are intended among other things to enable NHS bodies to fund positive recommendations from NICE. NHS bodies will fund treatment on clinical recommendations in line with the guidance from NICE. I believe that sufficient resources have been allocated for the current tax year to allow that to happen.
So far as concerns clinical guidance, a number of questions were asked about its availability. Professional guidance on the management of patients with HCV will also be available shortly. The Royal College of Physicians, the British Society of Gastroenterology and the Association for the Study of
1030
the Liver are finalising evidence-based clinical guidelines for the treatment of HCV. I hope that those guidelines, alongside the implementation of the NICE guidelines in relation to drugs, will produce a consistent approach throughout the National Health Service.
Before replying to a number of points raised in the debate, I should like to commend the remarks of my noble friend Lord Turnberg in relation to the work of the Public Health Laboratory Service. This service provides invaluable public health data, crucial in supporting health authorities in the formulation of local healthcare strategies. I assure noble Lords that we are looking at how we can enhance that information and how we might develop a modelling tool to predict future trends.
Eighty per cent of HCV transmission is associated with injecting drug misuse. Misconceptions, rumours and misinformation are some of the greatest allies of HCV transmission. We are keen to avoid the stigmatisation that the first HIV infected people had to deal with and we recognise the value of accurate information. To tackle these issues I am pleased to announce that this year we shall be funding a number of activities to increase the skills of professions working in the drug treatment field so that they can be better equipped to encourage drug misusers to stop injecting and sharing. Work will begin almost immediately on the development of up-to-date guidance on hepatitis C and strategies to minimise transmission, to be backed up by regionally based workshops and seminars.
The noble Earl, Lord Howe, and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, asked about research. Recent Department of Health funded research indicates that the prevalence of HCV among drug misusers is falling. That is good news, and many people deserve credit for it. But government funding does not stop there. We have, for example, commissioned a £ 1 million study into the potential health benefits of treating the disease in its mild stage. Because of the harsh treatment regime, the current advice is to avoid drug therapy at this stage as the potential risks are likely to outweigh any known benefits. But there is much in that area that we need to research. I should be happy to place in the Library a copy of the extensive research projects that are under way.
I was asked about preventing hepatitis C transmission in prisons. The Prison Service has a strategy for preventing the spread of communicable diseases in prisons which covers training, education, prevention, risk reduction and harm minimisation. This is complemented by the Prison Service's drug strategy. Disinfecting tablets for the purpose of clearing drug taking equipment have been trialled in 11 establishments since 1998. We are now considering whether we should extend the trial to all establishments.
The noble Lord, Lord Colwyn, is absolutely right as regards the position of dentists. Provided that dentists comply with the accepted standards of infection control in their surgeries, dental treatment for patients

1031
with hepatitis C poses no additional risk to the patient, the dentist, the dental staff or other patients. I fully accept the point raised by the noble Lord about oral health. I thank him for his remarks on the dental strategy.
In conclusion, I say to the noble Earl, Lord Howe, that I accept the challenge that he posed to the Government. I believe that the direction we are taking will maximise NHS services for people with HCV. I believe that we are taking a strategic approach. With regard to prevention and control activities, we are considering how we can strengthen and develop prevention and surveillance. We will continue to raise awareness of HCV by working with the voluntary sector and others to provide information and advice for the general public and for those groups most at risk. We are funding activities to increase the skills of professionals working in the drug treatment field.
With regard to treatment and care, we have recognised the increasing importance of hepatology, not only for patients with HCV but for those with other complex liver diseases who should have access to specialist hepatology units with the necessary knowledge and expertise. We have discussed this with leading liver organisations, including the British Liver Trust and the British Association for the Study of the Liver. We have agreed that the BASL should apply formally for recognition as a sub-speciality of gastroenterology for training purposes. We believe that that will supply a future good number of fully trained hepatologists who will then be able to care for these patients.
We are developing a commissioning framework to ensure that specialist hepatology services are developing to uniform standards throughout the country. I should tell the noble Earl, Lord Howe, that regional specialist commissioning groups will be heavily involved in implementing the commissioning framework. I believe that that will lead to a much more uniform and co-ordinated approach throughout the country. Alongside the recommendations of NICE in relation to the use of combination therapy, I believe that that will ensure that, in the future, the NHS will have the ability to prevent this distressing disease, as far as that is possible, and ensure that counselling and testing services are up to the required standard. We must be able to provide the best treatment.
I believe that the noble Earl, Lord Howe, has performed a great service for the House by raising such important issues tonight. I hope that noble Lords are assured that we are very taken with the seriousness of the points raised. We are determined to do what we can to ensure that the services and the prevention of this most distressing disease are given as much priority as is possible.
Lord Burlison: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until twenty-five minutes before nine.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 8.31 until 8.35 p.m.]

Countryside and Rights of Way Bill
Consideration of amendments on Report resumed on Clause 2.
[Amendment No. 23 not moved.]
Lord Glentoran Lord Glentoran moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 2, line 39, at end insert—
("( ) A person who refuses to comply with an instruction from any person acting with lawful authority to enforce Schedule 2 or any restriction imposed under Chapter II, shall be guilty of an offence and liable, on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding level 1 on the standard scale.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 25 and 26. This amendment relates to an offence of obstructing someone who is attempting to enforce restrictions. It seeks to establish an offence of refusing to comply with the instruction from a warden, or other person entitled to enforce such restrictions under Schedule 2 and Chapter II. Such a provision is standard in existing by-laws for access agreement land on open country; for example, in the Peak District National Park. It is essential that wardens have effective powers to enforce the restrictions. I suggest that simply asking someone politely to leave the land is inadequate. A stronger sanction is needed where someone refuses, when asked, to stop abusing his or her right of access.
Despite what was said earlier this afternoon regarding repeating arguments that were made in Committee, I should like to bring forward a few points that I know I mentioned at that stage. The Bill does not appear to provide for an offence of obstructing anyone seeking lawfully to enforce the restrictions set out under Schedule 2, or any other restrictions under Chapter II. It seems to me that owners need to be able to point out to abusers that, if they persist in the activity, they will commit a criminal offence and be liable to arrest and prosecution. Owners need to be able to point that out to would-be offenders, offenders or abusers. However, we want clarity in everything that is happening. I believe that we need something on the face of the Bill that can or will be used in codes of practice and other documentation where people are learning about access to the countryside. Therefore, to cover situations where a warden, a landowner, a land manager, or someone in authority, may approach a potential offender or an offender and say, "Look here, if you persist in doing that you'll be liable to prosecution: you must stop it and go.", it seems to me that it is necessary to have some sanctions on the face of the Bill.
Amendments Nos. 25 and 26 are in a not dissimilar vein. They deal with establishing a deterrent. First, we need to establish the offence. Then, having done so, we need to establish a deterrent. Perhaps exclusion orders could be used. That is an alternative route, but one that could be useful.
A similar amendment—Amendment No. 96—was not spoken to in Committee. Mr Meacher said in the other place at col. 230 of the Official Report on 11th April that exclusion orders could be used to tackle

1033
persistent breaches. Making this explicit in the Bill would enable it to be advertised as a deterrent in the codes produced for users. That would constitute an alternative to the civil procedures. Owners' only option under the Bill as at present drafted is to seek an injunction at their own cost to exclude a persistent trespasser. The amendment would apply to abuses committed on any day or days, not just within the same day. An exclusion order could be sought only by the access authority. This would ensure that the procedure is used only in the most appropriate circumstances.
New Section 40A(1) of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000—if inserted as proposed by Clause 43 of the current Criminal Justice and Court Services Bill—provides that,
"Where a person is convicted of an offence, the court by or before which he is convicted may (subject to sections 34 to 36 above) make an order prohibiting him from entering a place specified in the order for a period so specified of not more than one year".
Amendment No. 26 seeks to establish as a deterrent that a criminal offence would arise where anyone persistently—the emphasis is on "persistently"—ignored the provisions of Schedule 2 or restrictions under Chapter II. A similar amendment was not spoken to in Committee. If exclusion orders cannot be used, what further sanction, other than taking out a civil injunction at the owner's expense, can be imposed on someone who persistently ignores Schedule 2 or restrictions under Chapter II? This amendment seeks to establish a criminal offence with the minimum sanction a maximum fine of £200. It would apply only where Schedule 2, or restrictions under Chapter II, were repeatedly ignored on the same day. This is a targeted sanction for persistent abusers of the right of access on any one day. For example, I refer to a person caught driving a vehicle on moorland who returns weekend after weekend to have his fun until he is chucked off the land—which he probably regards as fun anyway. We consider that that action should be subject to a legal sanction. In such a case we consider that a fine not exceeding £200 is not likely to act as a deterrent and that an exclusion order would he much more appropriate. I hope that it is clear what we seek to achieve with the amendments. We seek to create some form of meaningful sanction. We also want to ensure that the public understand where they stand when a warden asks them to leave the land in question or to cease doing whatever they may be doing. I beg to move.
Lord Monro of Langholm: My Lords, I accept that the Government believe in conservation, as I do. The noble Lord, Lord Hardy of Wath, will remember that I piloted the Wildlife and Countryside Bill through another place. However, the message that the general public will glean from the Bill when it is enacted is that there is freedom of access with no sanctions. That is contrary to what the Government are trying to do. If sanctions are not established, we shall not achieve effective conservation. One cannot have it both ways. One must have some form of sanction against those who seek to disobey the legislation and commit
1034
offences that will impact on conservation. We have discussed impacts on ground nesting birds and so on. If we do not establish some sanctions, the message will go out that people can do what they like because there is nothing much that the landowner, the farmer, the tenant farmer or the gamekeeper can do to stop them.
We want to hear the Government mention again the fair balance that they have talked about. They have spoken of a fair balance, but at present the position seems to be totally weighted against those who are trying to conserve their own land in terms of habitat and wildlife. The Government should say that they will reconsider the matter before Third Reading to try to strike a fairer balance in the interests of habitat and wildlife. I am not talking about the interests of landlords if that is what is worrying the Government. As the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, will be aware, if no sanctions were established with regard to SSSIs, far more damage would occur. That is exactly what will happen on moors, open countryside and downland if no practical sanctions are established. We are not asking for draconian sanctions such as prison sentences; we are asking for some form of sanction that will bring to heel those who wish to break the law and make them accept that in the interests of conservation they cannot behave in such a fashion. We need to consider carefully the amendments proposed by my noble friend and the Government need to strike a fair balance and establish sanctions before the Bill finishes its passage through the House.
8.45 p.m.
Earl Peel: My Lords, I support the essence of my noble friend's amendments and I echo what my noble friend Lord Monro has said. I understand that the Government do not wish to criminalise access. However, there is no question in my mind that there is a major flaw in the Bill in that it has no bite. There is no recourse for the owner or manager against those who persistently ignore the provisions of Schedule 2 and Chapter II.
The by-laws, regulations and closure orders are in the Bill for a good reason. The Minister has constantly told us that the Countryside Agency or the access authorities will respond sensibly to requests for those measures. I am sure that he is right. However, the authorities will not impose those measures unless there is good reason for that. If there is a good reason, it seems to me logical that the owner should have recourse to the law to thwart those people who persistently ignore requests to leave the land in question.
The position established under the Bill is totally different from the one that exists at present. Substantial acreages of land are to be opened up to the public for the first time. I suggest that as a quid pro quo for that we need new sanctions to deal with the few people—I acknowledge that they will be few—who will ignore the regulations established by the Bill. If we fail to establish those sanctions, there is a very real possibility that the message that the public will glean from the Bill is, "If you break the rules, the owner can resort to the civil courts". However, that is ineffective

1035
and expensive. We should not forget that. I urge the Government to consider seriously how we can introduce into the Bill a measure which will enable owners and managers to impose some sanction against those who persistently ignore the provisions of Schedule 2 and Chapter II. As I say, I thoroughly understand and appreciate that the Government do not want to criminalise access. However, as I said, the Bill introduces new access provisions. We need new sanctions to deal with any problems that may arise from that.
Viscount Bledisloe: My Lords, I echo what the noble Earl, Lord Peel says. Unless there is some way to deal with people who break the rules, the owner's only resort will be to go to the access authority and say, "Look, my land is open for access. People persistently break the rules. I cannot stop them. Therefore please give me a closure order in order to restrict these people coming at night, with dogs and so on". The legitimate people who seek to exercise their rights in a responsible way will lose their right of access because the irresponsible people cannot be policed.
There must be some way of dealing with the irresponsible; otherwise, if the irresponsible cause damage, the owner will have a cast iron case for requesting the access authority to withdraw access. The owner may say that his lambs are being killed or his rare flora dug up; that he has no sanction; that he cannot find out who these people are and therefore the land must be closed. The result will be that the well behaved majority suffer as a consequence of the inability to control the irresponsible minority.
Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, I shall not oppose the Government on this issue. However, one point of the noble Lord's amendment deserves serious consideration. I refer to litter; it is a hobby horse of mine. I spend a good deal of my spare time collecting litter near my home. People throw glass into water where children swim. One person apparently has the hobby of de positing litter on the top of hills which the landlord or farmer has continually to remove. It is a national problem, not restricted to access areas. This is now by far the most common criminal offence in Britain for which there are only rarely prosecutions. Schools do not take quite so much care on this issue as they did when I was a schoolmaster. The schools were remarkably free of litter because the children had to pick it up. Now, apparently, that is a health and safety risk.
We need a culture change. Then the anxieties expressed by the noble Earl, Lord Peel, may be less acute. But unless there is an enforcement of law—it is largely ignored—the problem will not only continue but intensify. If the Government will not accept the amendment, I hope that they will consider seriously the need to challenge the growing problem that litter presents to this country which makes us by far the dirtiest country in western Europe.
Baroness Young of Old Scone: My Lords, I declare an interest as chairman of English Nature. I speak to
1036
Amendments Nos. 24 and 25. I wish to describe some specific circumstances. I am not sure whether these are the right amendments to deal with the issue. I support the concern underlying them. There is need for more strenuous penalties than even the welcome 72-hour exclusion for those occasions when someone persistently and wilfully infringes exclusions and restrictions introduced on nature conservation grounds under Clause 24.
This is not about making trespass a criminal offence. It is not about inadvertent infringements of Schedule 2; the proposed 72-hour exclusion is probably all that is required. This issue relates to wilful and persistent infringement of exclusions which have been brought into place only when there has been a clear conservation need identified and after considerable consultation.
The provisions in Part III of the Bill can be used to take action after damage to nature conservation has occurred. But we need some provision in the Bill to reinforce the importance of Clause 24 exclusions and restrictions for the prevention of damage before it occurs rather than after it happens. Some species are now restricted to a very small number of sites. Once the damage has occurred, the species have gone, and we do not have a second chance. I urge the Minister to ponder on the point of the exclusion restrict ions in Clause 24 if they can be persistently flouted.
I hope that the Minister will reconsider the issue of sanctions in specific cases of Clause 24 exclusions and restrictions. The very wide definition of access land was acceptable from a nature conservation point of view if there were adequate provisions for restrictions and exclusions to protect vulnerable sites. If those provisions cannot be enforced, it raises major questions about how wide the definition of access land should be.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I cannot remember whether the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, spoke when. I moved Amendment No. 98 in Committee. It addressed the problem to which she refers. The Government believed that by-laws adequately covered the situation.
There is a difficulty as regards continual offenders. A farmer may have a right of way across his fields. He finds that people persistently leave the right of way, picnic in his fields and leave litter. I have perhaps more sympathy with lowland farmers faced with that situation; it is more common. There may be larger numbers of people involved than on access land where the problem may be less serious. I wonder whether the noble Lord who moved the amendment would want to implement the provision on low land? That would involve a culture shift. We on these Benches would not be happy with that. It might begin to "criminalise" the situation more and more.
Education is an important factor. I accept that that will never deal with difficult and persistent offenders. Access authorities will need, first, to develop with their wardens means of addressing the problem; and, secondly, to consider whether by-laws should be

1037
introduced to deal with it. In the interest of equity, we must consider the same situation with regard to the lowlands.
Lord Bragg: My Lords, perhaps I may be permitted to offer a view that I believe to be important and generally relevant. I agree that it is essential that property is safeguarded, that damage is not done and that despoiling and destroying are discouraged.
However, I should like to put in a positive word for the large tribe of British ramblers who I fear are in some danger of being misrepresented. Like millions of others, and many of your Lordships I am sure, I have walked in many areas of this country, sometimes frustratingly restricted as in the Lake District, for instance, where it is possible to walk round less than 10 per cent of the lakes and, as we age, walking along the lake shore begins to be powerfully attractive. I have walked in the Lake District every year of my life since the age of about 15 and for part of my life have lived in the splendid gaunt landscape of the northern Fells. Over those years the ramblers I have met—there must have been thousands—have, outside your Lordships' House, been the best mannered, most cheerful, careful, wholly admirable people it is possible to imagine.
9 p.m.
Earl Peel: My Lords, I assure the noble Lord that none of the measures in the amendments is aimed at ramblers. We are talking about a few people who persistently ignore the regulations under Schedule 2 and Chapter II. I did not table the amendments, but I am sure that my noble friends who did so agree that they are not designed in any way to be anti-rambler. We are dealing with a few people who persistently ignore the regulations and rules under the Bill.
Lord Bragg: My Lords, I accept what the noble Earl has said, but it has been my impression during the course of our debates that, by association, ramblers have been rather misrepresented. I continue with my point.
The first aim of the ramblers whom I know is to keep the countryside as beautiful, tidy and varied as they find it. In my view they are its greatest supporters. Their second aim in most cases is to attempt to lift restrictions and challenge oppositions that needlessly and truculently constrain a peaceful, quiet and healthy pleasure. I repeat my fear that they are in danger of being tainted by association. Once again, I recognise that there must be laws, but the British rambler is in danger of being presented as a thoughtless, uncaring menace, particularly when it begins to get dark. That is not my experience or the experience of many others. I wish to register that point.
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I moved the amendment and I take serious offence at what the noble Lord, Lord Bragg, is saying. I greatly respect him in his professional life, but I do not know where his conclusions come from. I do not know how long he spent in the Chamber during the six days that we
1038
considered the Bill in Committee, but I assure him that his conclusions about how ramblers are thought of are utterly false. I have said several times that I have given a large part of my life to introducing young people to the countryside. We have paid many compliments and tributes to ramblers and the Ramblers Association for all the good things that they have done. I ask the noble Lord, Lord Bragg, to admit that some of his conclusions may be wrong.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, these relatively straightforward amendments have been exaggerated—I do not mean by my noble friend Lord Bragg. Your Lordships seem to have a fundamental problem with the criminal law. Some of your Lordships seem to think that it is possible to pass laws that will prevent people committing crimes. The law has never been able to do that. It can punish people who commit crimes and other laws not connected with the criminal law can sometimes assist in the prevention of crime. Action by government, local government and citizens can sometimes assist in the prevention of crime, but a crime cannot be prevented by passing a law to say that it is illegal.
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I am not sure why the Minister is saying this. I intervened when the noble Lord, Lord Bragg, spoke to correct some points that he was making about ramblers. It had nothing to do with the criminal law or any other aspect of the amendments.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I was making a few introductory remarks to my response on the amendments. I hope that the House would wish me to do that. I was not intervening on behalf of my noble friend; I was responding to the debate. I thought that that was called for—indeed, I still think so.
We spent a considerable time in Committee debating whether a criminal penalty should apply to a breach of the general restrictions or those imposed under Chapter II. Amendment No. 24 would create a slightly different offence, which would not apply to a breach of the restriction. The offence would apply when a person did not obey an instruction from someone with lawful authority to enforce Schedule 2 or Chapter II restrictions.
If a user breaches the restrictions, the landowner and any warden will be entitled to require them to leave. They will lose the right of access. If someone is inadvertently in breach of a restriction, no doubt they will refrain from the breach once it is pointed out. The landowner may decide to take no further action, but he will still be entitled to ask them to leave.
The amendment would put wardens, landowners and their agents in possibly an even more powerful position than police officers, by making any refusal to obey their instructions a criminal offence. It can never be justifiable to give private individuals greater powers than the police in that way. The amendment would criminalise trespass. When we debated night access, the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, vehemently denied that he sought to criminalise trespass. He denied the

1039
accusation that he was turning walkers into potential criminals. The amendments would do that, so I hope that the noble Viscount will not vote for them if they are put to the test in the House, because that would go against what he has told the House in the past couple of hours.
In many cases, a breach of a restriction will additionally be a criminal offence. When it is not a criminal offence we do not wish to make it so by adopting a blanket approach. If there are particular problems, by-laws are the appropriate tool. They allow measures to be targeted and they allow for consultation, which is appropriate, given that a new criminal offence is to be created.
Amendment No. 25 would provide that the access authority may seek an exclusion order following an application by the owner, as well as of its own accord. We agree that some criminal acts may cause particular harm or damage to someone or something on access land. In such cases, it may be highly desirable to ensure that the offender has no right of return to the access land in question for a substantial period. The provisions to be inserted in the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 by the Criminal Justice and Court Services Bill, which had a chequered passage through your Lordships' House yesterday, are the best way to address that requirement. They set out a special process with specific procedures; for example, the obtaining of pre-sentence reports and preconditions for the imposition of such an order.
However, it would not be appropriate for these provisions to deal with what may be minor breaches of restrictions. Exclusion orders are meant to deal with criminal offences which may attract a sentence of imprisonment and which are sufficiently grave to justify excluding the offender from a place or area. Classically, they have been used where there have been threats of violence and where someone is in fear of his life, safety, property, family or whatever from someone who has committed an offence. As under Section 40A of the Act as amended by the Criminal Justice and Court Services Bill, exclusion orders are designed for those who commit criminal offences. It is not clear how an authority would know that someone had repeatedly breached a restriction. It is likely that any such provision would be extremely difficult to apply in practice.
Exclusion orders may be a useful tool in a small number of circumstances where a serious offence takes place on access land and where excluding the offender from such land would serve a useful purpose in preventing further criminal behaviour. However, such powers should be used sparingly and should be subject to the careful procedures which will be set out in the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act. We do not believe that they should apply, as these amendments would provide, where breaches of a restriction have taken place, no matter how minor.
Where threatened or repeated trespass takes place, landowners may apply for injunctions, just as they may at present. Such injunctions will be far easier to obtain than exclusion orders, which would have to be sought through the criminal courts.
1040
I turn now to Amendment No. 26.
Viscount Bledisloe: My Lords, before the noble Lord continues, he has, I am sure inadvertently, wholly misrepresented what I said. With the leave of the House, perhaps I may he allowed the opportunity to put him right.
I replied to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, who said that the amendments should state that those who exercise the right of access are likely to be criminals. I said nothing of the kind. I explained to her our view that criminals might use the right as a method of masquerading as genuine people. I have never suggested, and do not suggest, that those who persistently—I emphasise that word—disregard the rules and flaunt the system which the Government have imposed should be treated as criminals. I did not say anything of the kind and I should be grateful if the noble Lord were a little more careful in describing my language.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the record will show both the exchange between the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, and the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, and that between the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, and myself. I only said that he vehemently resisted the idea that under certain circumstances walkers were being turned into criminals. I say that under certain circumstances these amendments would provide that trespass would become a criminal offence, in addition to the existing criminal offences. They would do so in a way which is not provided anywhere else in our criminal law.
Perhaps I may return to Amendment No. 26. Again, we debated the question of whether a criminal penalty should apply to a breach of the general restrictions or restrictions imposed under Chapter II. We explained that we do not agree that simple trespass, even if it occurs on two or more occasions, should be a criminal offence—that is the crux of the matter so far as concerns the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, and I—subject to a fine of up to £200. That would be the effect of Amendment No. 26. It would make trespass a criminal offence.
The sanctions available to landowners against those who trespass on their land under the new right are no different from those currently used against trespassers. They may require the person to leave the land and, if necessary, may seek an order of the court to prevent a repetition. If damage is done to the land, or to property on the land, damages may be obtained. In itself, trespass has never been a criminal offence, even throughout the past two centuries when large landowners, both Whig and Tory, dominated the membership of your Lordships' House. Trespass has never been a criminal offence. We see no reason to make it an offence on open countryside. That would place owners of open countryside in a more favourable position than landowners generally.
A person in breach of a restriction will cease to have the benefit of the statutory right for the next 72 hours. As I said, they could be asked to leave the land. Landowners will be able to seek injunctions against

1041
those who trespass repeatedly or who threaten to do so, and the existing law will continue to apply in cases of aggravated trespass. Breaches of restrictions which cause harm or damage are likely to constitute a criminal offence. Tougher penalties are already in place for such breaches than those proposed by these amendments.
I turn to the issue of breach of conservation restrictions. Under Part III of the Bill it is a new criminal offence intentionally or recklessly to damage an SSSI, subject to a £20,000 fine in a magistrates' court or an unlimited fine in a Crown Court. The Government have tabled a new power for English Nature to make by-laws to protect any SSSI. By-laws can already be made to protect European conservation sites. Where a serious problem exists, the land can be wholly excluded from access, if necessary, by direction under Chapter 2.
The noble Lord, Lord Monro, asked about a fair balance. There is a fair balance in this Bill. There are no criminal sanctions applied to landowners who obstruct or deny access under Part I other than the exceptional circumstances of the breach of a court order under Clause 37 or the deliberate erection of a misleading sign under Clause 14.
Walkers, on the other hand, will continue to be, as they have always been, subject to the existing criminal law.
My noble friend Lord Hardy asked about litter. Leaving litter on access land will be a criminal offence under the Environmental Protection Act 1990, as it has always been.
The noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, made a point about persistent offenders. I do not apologise for returning to it, but if there are areas where there are persistent offenders and problems with enforcement the access authority can appoint wardens to target that area, and we would expect them to do exactly that.
With all of these protections that exist for actual offences, I cannot believe that it is right, directly or indirectly, to overturn many tens or hundreds of years of the existing law on trespass and criminal law in order to criminalise trespass. That is what these amendments would do.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, is the Minister going to respond to the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, who has been thinking a great deal about this and has something to say?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I did respond in part. The noble Baroness made a point about trespass on to excluded land, conservation exclusions. English Nature has powers to make bylaws over national nature reserves and European sites, and they will be extended to cover SSSIs. These by-laws can prohibit mere entry on to a site. Currently, only a few English Nature by-laws have been made on
1042
nature reserves and none has been made on European sites. It suggests that entry on to closed sites is not currently a problem.
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I have heard what the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has said in regard to these amendments.
I want to make one or more points very clearly. I understand what he is saying about creating a criminal offence for trespass. That is not our intention. I do not believe that that would be right. I agree entirely with the noble Lord on that. However, I believe that part of the objective of these amendments—particularly Amendment No. 24—is that there should be something in the code books or on the face of the Bill which reminds people that wardens or managers have a responsibility, supported in law, should people offend the codes or rules. I think that is important.
What is more important, and was supported to some degree or another on all sides of the House, if I may quote the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, is that Amendments Nos. 25 and 26 are not about ordinary people making mistakes. They are about persistent offenders. I made that point very strongly. I emphasised the word "persistent" when I introduced the amendments. The purpose of Amendments Nos. 25 and 26 is to ask the Government to find a way on the face of the Bill to assist the management of persistent offenders. Those persistent offenders could be as bad as the person who drives some sort of quad bike round and round on some access ground on a regular basis until he is thrown off.
As I understand it, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said that the new criminal justice Bill could be used in this way to help this situation.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, one has to be very careful about that. The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, should read Section 40A that is introduced into the 1990 Act by the Criminal Justice and Court Services Bill. Then he should consider whether that Bill is likely to be changed further in its passage through Parliament. I do not think the noble Lord should rely on it at the moment.
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that intervention. Certainly, I accept the advice.
I leave the House with the point that all of us, except the Government Front Bench, believe that at this moment there is a need for stronger sanctions against the persistent quasi-criminal offender within access areas. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 25 and 26 not moved.]
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 27:
Page 2, leave out line 41.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 28 and 29 not moved.]
Lord Roberts of Conwy Lord Roberts of Conwy moved Amendment No. 30:
After Clause 2, insert the following new clause—

Countryside and Rights of Way Bill

  INTENTION TO REMAIN ON ACCESS LAND: OBLIGATION TO GIVE NOTICE
  (" .—(1) A person who intends to enter or to remain on access land during any part of the period from one hour after sunset on one day to one hour before sunrise on the following day shall give prior notice of that intention to the access authority.
  (2) The access authority shall take such steps as seem to it appropriate and practicable to—

  (a) communicate to any person giving such notice information as to restrictions relating to, and activities to be carried out on, such land, and

  (b) enable owners and other persons interested in access land to obtain information as to notices which have been given.").

  The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of this new clause is to ensure that a person who intends to enter or remain on access land at night gives prior notice to the access authority. That is covered in subsection (1).
  Subsection (2) seeks to ensure that the access authority informs such a person of any restrictions in force or activities taking place on the land and ensures that owners and other interested persons are told of those who have given notice of their intended nocturnal visit.
  As the House will have concluded, this is a clause of last resort as regards night access. It is minimalist in its requirements. I hope that noble Lords on the Liberal Benches may give it some favourable consideration, if only to pacify Mr Colin Breed, the Member for South East Cornwall, who is, I understand, the Liberal spokesman on agriculture, rural affairs and fisheries. He appeared in a forum organised by the Countryside Alliance on Thursday, 19th October, and declared himself against night access. So perhaps we may have some consistency in the Liberal ranks. I invite Liberal support for my proposed new clause.
  It was ma de clear in Committee, when I tabled a similar but less comprehensive amendment, that it was the safety of night visitors that I had first and foremost in mind. That is still the case. With due respect to the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, who is not here at the moment, I referred to some 265 accidents that occur annually in Snowdonia. Out of respect for the noble Baroness, I shall not repeat any of the tangential facts relating to that.
  In the course of our discussion in Committee, various other proper and very valid concerns were raised and the proposed new clause seeks to take account of them. For example, there was the concern of owners and managers highlighted by the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, in another amendment in Committee and again, of course, today. And there was concern about the safety of property, livestock, ground-nesting birds and so on. There was concern too about tamping and operations against foxes.
  My point is that all those concerns, which are very extensive, as the Government know, would be greatly reduced by knowledge of the presence and identity of those wandering in access land after dark.
  The new clause gives a statutory basis for what is accepted as good practice; namely, giving advance notice of a night visit to an area which may involve hazards of one kind or another. That good practice was referred to by a number of your Lordships, including the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, in the course of our discussions.
  Reputable organisations advise their members to give prior notice of their intentions and likely whereabouts on night ventures at the places where they stay—hotels and so on—or to local rescue teams. That is a sensible precaution and the Government would be wise to give it statutory form, especially as the area open to access will be considerably increased. The Government are going wrong by considering things as they are without taking into account the significant extension of access land and, possibly, the increased numbers using it.
  Lord Greaves: My Lords, what is one supposed to do if one is already on access land and, because it is a glorious day and will be a glorious night, one decides to stay—even though one did not intend to do so beforehand?
  Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, the same rule applies. If it is likely that a person will stay overnight on access land, he should give that information to the authority.
  I am not greatly concerned with the popular nocturnal visitor spots. The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, mentioned Snowdon in Committee. I am concerned about the less well-known locations which will be open to access and which are comparatively unexplored by walkers. Members of reputable organisations can be trusted to take the necessary precautions. I am concerned about less-experienced groups who may venture forth at night without a proper assessment of risk and may end up in tragic circumstances that could have been avoided had they had the foresight to give prior notice to knowledgeable people. Who better to inform than the access authority, which would tell the landowner and other interested parties
  Everything I have heard since the Bill came before the House confirms my view that we should establish and develop the good practice envisaged in the proposed new clause. In Committee, noble Lords indicated that it was the general practice of organisations for ramblers, climbers and so on to give prior notice of their intention to be on a mountain or in other hazardous places at night.
  It is only a matter of days since a group of Italian soldiers became lost on the Brecon Beacons. They gave a wrong map reference to their would-be rescuers who spent nine hours searching for them. One soldier was taken to hospital suffering from hypothermia after a night in the open. If that can happen to soldiers on a planned military exercise, I do not hold out much chance for ill-equipped young people or other civilians on an unplanned night foray—although I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, is quite capable of taking care of himself.

  1045
  I have no doubt that tragic occurrences would be fewer if the proposed new clause were in place and access authorities and wardens were given prior notice. Safety has a high priority in almost every sphere of life these days—be it rail travel or eating beefburgers. It would be remiss of the Government to ensure public safety on racing gallops but ignore it on access land. Why is there a difference? Maybe the Government are afraid of being accused of nannying, but I do not believe that that can be the case.
  There is no penalty on an access authority or an individual for failure to comply with the requirements of the new clause. As I said, it is an attempt to give statutory backing to current best practice, to improve safety at night for those who venture on to access land and to ensure the safety of property and livestock on access land. I can assure the Government that people will sleep sounder if they know who is on the mountain, heath, down or moorland near their home. I urge the Government to give this last-resort clause on night access a sympathetic hearing.
  9.30 p.m.
  Viscount Bledisloe: My Lords, my name should appear to this amendment, but for some administrative reason it does not.
  My first point is that if people are to be given access to open land at night, it is highly desirable that someone should know who is on the land. This amendment contemplates a simple telephone system to be set up by the access authority so that anyone venturing out at night can leave a message to say who he is, how many are in his party and where they are going. The amendment was deliberately designed to say that because in Committee the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, raised the point of someone not deciding whether to go out at night until late in the afternoon as he wanted to see what the weather would be like.
  The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, has now raised a further point: what happens if someone wants to stay out? Last time he told the House that it was irresponsible to stay out at night on the mountains without having deposited a plan and told people where one was going and when one was returning. In these days of modern technology, it would not be difficult for the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, to pick up a mobile telephone and to tell the access authority that he was staying out.
  Lord Greaves: My Lords, I wonder why the noble Viscount assumes that I have a mobile telephone.
  Viscount Bledisloe: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, has impressed upon us how enormously responsible a climber and a walker he is, and as he has told us that he would not dream of being out at night on a hill without someone knowing where he was I assume that if he was liable to change his mind at the last moment he would carry the wherewithal to communicate that fact. This legislation cannot be designed around the eccentricities of one noble Lord!
  1046
  Secondly, under this amendment such a telephone system would enable the caller to hear information about any special problems notified to the authority. There may be work in progress on the land or trenches dug that they could be told about. Night lamping may be taking place or there may be restrictions due to lambing. When someone telephoned to say that they intended visiting a particular site, there could be a recorded message saying that on such and such land there was a restriction.
  Thirdly, an owner could access the telephone system and discover whether people had given notice that they would be on his land that night. Also an owner seeing or hearing movement on his land could check whether legitimate walkers had given notice.
  This amendment has been designed carefully to answer all the difficulties that were raised in Committee. I venture to hope that the Government will regard the amendment as a sensible way of dealing with the problem of the information that is needed if there is to be night access.
  Lord Judd: My Lords, the word "bizarre" has just been bandied around and I hope that I can introduce the word "philistine". The thought of the countryside being littered with people carrying mobile telephones ringing in to say where they are fills me with dismay. What are we turning our countryside into?
  The problem which arises from the amendment concerns the cost. If the provision is to work well, it will be an extremely costly exercise. The information which will be needed at the control point must be assembled and the means must be found to disperse it to everyone who needs it. The question which the noble Lord did not answer in moving the amendment was what on earth the people receiving the information will do with it.
  If we were introducing some draconian rule, I would resist it. I am happy to plead guilty to being pleased to share with the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, the eccentricity of his approach to the countryside; I find myself very much at one with it. Certain things may be desirable in terms of responsible conduct. But it is also true that if we are enjoying the countryside, trying to act as responsibly as possible, we make spontaneous decisions about what is possible on a particularly lovely night in a wonderful situation. It would be a nightmare at that point to find ourselves curbed by all kinds of restrictions and legal requirements.
  The issue is: what would be done with the information? Is the cost justified? Surely, the money which would go into such an exercise could help landowners in a host of other ways; for example, erecting stiles, providing wardens and so forth for the positive management of the countryside. From the way in which the amendment has been tabled, I do not begin to understand why it is a priority that is preoccupying us at this hour of the night.
  Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, perhaps I may first address the issue of consistency which the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, accused the

  1047
  Liberal Democrat Benches of lacking. I am somewhat tempted to think that envy prompted that observation because our very consistency and persistence in both Houses has resulted in a large number of our amendments being accepted. I shall not take up the time of the House by listing them, but I must say that it is a remarkable number of which we are proud. I do not believe that we have the slightest record of inconsistency.
  If I were to stay on the theme of inconsistency, I should have to remind the Conservative Benches how inconsistent they were on, for example, the AONB issue when in the other place they vociferously asked for it to be on the face of the Bill only to tear it apart when it came to this place. Therefore, I should not like to place too much weight on the consistency argument.
  Turning to the amendment, it would be extra ordinary to envisage how it might work. I declare an interest as a Somerset county councillor with experience of an access authority. Everything about the amendment makes it unworkable. For example, if the landowner failed to telephone the access authority to communicate an activity being undertaken on the land, who would be liable for the access authority then not being able to tell the person who telephoned that such an activity could take place? Would it be the landowner or the access authority?
  The noble Lord, Lord Judd, raised the issue of the number of people required to operate the system. In the summer, even in a county such as Somerset which has a relatively restricted area of access land mainly in the Quantocks and Exmoor, a large number of telephone calls would be made from landowners to the access authority and from people intending to walk. The proposal is completely unworkable.
  I understand the point which the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, made about safety and of course it is important. But the fact is, as was debated in Committee, responsible people going on to access land to undertake activities usually leave a route plan with friends, family or at their hotel. Obviously, they should be encouraged to continue to do so and perhaps to do so more often. However, it is no good laying the responsibility on to national parks and county councils, which already deal with a plethora of immediate emergency situations. If this week during the floods in Somerset people had been telephoning the authority to report that they were thinking of going for a walk on top of Dundry Beacon, we would not have regarded it as a good use of staff time. We cannot therefore support the amendment.
  Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, I say a few words which in part reflect my experience as a schoolmaster. I am not unduly worried about Italian soldiers in the Brecon Beacons, who would probably receive a campaign decoration as a result. One is concerned here with young people. I do not know whether the Government agree with the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Roberts. However, the subject-matter of the amendment should be given serious consideration. Even if the Government do not pay heed to it, before the Bill is implemented they must
  1048
  ensure that either the department or the voluntary bodies concerned issue a clear code of conduct which spells out what every education authority and organisation responsible for young people must do. Too often children have been injured or killed because leadership has not been of the highest standard.
  One must also consider cost. Not many people have worked out the cost of sending helicopters to rescue people, who in some cases should have more sense. We do not have very high mountains in this country, but we have desolate areas which can be extremely cold and dangerous. Children should not be taken into those areas unless schools, education authorities and young people's organisations adequately brief, and set out the terms of conduct for, those who lead such parties.
  Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord does not believe that education authorities take out young people without saying where they intend to go and obtaining permission for the trip. That is not my experience. No voluntary youth organisation or Duke of Edinburgh Award scheme would do it either. Those are not the kinds of organisations that one has in mind here.
  In response to the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, if the high mountains and hills of England and Wales are anything like the Angus glens, mobile telephones simply will not work there.
  Lord Mancroft: My Lords, this Bill gives rise to a number of difficult issues which noble Lords have debated piece by piece at Committee stage and this evening. Probably the issue which causes the greatest difficulty on all sides of the House, but perhaps from different angles, is night access. I and my noble friends and other noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Hardy of Wath, were concerned at both Second Reading and Committee stage about night access. The Government believe that this is a matter of principle. If there is a principle, it is a fairly weak and pathetic one. I do not understand the principle, despite the fact that it has been explained several times. The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, explained it to me outside the House last night. I believe that at the end I thanked him very much but said that I still did not understand it. Nevertheless, the Government regard it is an important principle.
  However, if the Government want this important Bill they must understand that a large number of noble Lords have a real problem about night access. It would be a constructive move to find some way out of the problem without compromising the Government's principle. The Government should have their business, although God alone knows why.
  When noble Lords discussed this matter in Committee my noble friend Lord Jopling (who I am pleased to see is back in his place) put forward the idea that a walker, rambler or whoever should inform someone. I believe that at that stage Members of the Committee on all sides regarded it as a new and interesting idea. Therefore, the proposal of my noble

  1049
  friend Lord Roberts is the son-of-Jopling amendment, as it were, and takes the whole matter further forward. For that reason, if for no other, it is an interesting idea.
  A number of noble Lords have raised practical problems about how the system will work by the use of mobile telephones. My noble friend Lady Carnegy said that mobile telephones did not work in Angus. Certainly, mobile telephones work fairly well in most places in the south and north of England. But it should not be forgotten that that is only if you are on a hill. If you informed people before you went, presumably you will not be on the hill when you make your telephone call, unless you are the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, or Italian soldiers. Presumably, they do not have sleeping bags and the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, does have a sleeping bag. Or if he does not have a sleeping bag with him to enable him to spend the night, presumably he did not intend to go on that access land at night. If he did not intend that then he does not need to inform anyone anyway under this clause. So there is not a problem.
  9.45 p.m.
  Lord Greaves: My Lords, given that it is dark at half-past three in the middle of December, does the noble Lord accept that I may actually stay after darkness without needing a sleeping bag because I may be back at home by one o'clock in the morning in time to go to my own bed?
  Lord Mancroft: My Lords, it is entirely possible that the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, will go climbing in Snowdonia in November or December without any means of protection from the weather. In which case I suspect he will end up like our Italian friends. He is raising unnecessary issues here which can be overcome. The reality is that this system can work. The noble Lord, Lord Judd, raised some issues about communication possibilities, as did the noble Lord, Lord Greaves. But the reality is that, with modern communications, information of this kind can be given to local and access authorities for them to process. With modern computers and with modern technology that is really not difficult, nor is it expensive. So get around that one. The practicalities are there in this day and age. We can do it.
  Lord Judd: My Lords, I referred to the possibility of a nightmare. Will the noble Lord accept that for many of those wishing to enjoy the countryside, the whole purpose is to get away from all the encumbrances and paraphernalia that go with modern technology and enjoy—at least for a brief spate of time—something totally different? Are the speakers to the proposed amendment trying to enforce technology and all technology's culture into the peace of the countryside?
  Lord Mancroft: No, my Lords. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Judd, is getting a little over-excited about the matter. I, too, live in the countryside and I appreciate it without technology. But when people make a mistake and get into trouble they expect
  1050
  modern technology with its whirly blades to come and get them out. We would love to go into the countryside without technology, but in this day and age we balance these things. We want the ambulance and the helicopter to come quickly enough when we are in trouble. What we are trying to do here is not to get angry about it, but to find a happy medium way forward.
  My noble friend Lord Roberts raised the issue of the forum of the Countryside Alliance conference last week at which Mr Colin Breed spoke. I have already declared an interest to your Lordships—I am happy to do so again—as a director of the Countryside Alliance. I chaired that forum. Not only was Mr Colin Breed of the Liberal Democrats part of that forum, but we were delighted that the Minister for the Environment, Mr Michael Meacher—whose Bill we are discussing today—was part of that forum. I listened very carefully to what the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, said. I was amazed when she told us that Mr Colin Breed was not responsible for this brief in the other place on behalf of her party because he told me and the other 600 people at the conference—luckily it is on tape so we shall be able to see it on the screen—that he did have the responsibility. He told the conference that it was very much the Liberal Democrat policy that they were deeply concerned about night access. I may have got that wrong. We will ask the other 599. But he made that point very strongly, which is why I was amazed, as was my noble friend Lord Roberts.
  I have gone on too long and I apologise to the House. The Minister, Mr Meacher, was part of that forum. One of the issues that was discussed for quite a time with Mr Breed, Mr Meacher and a number of others was the issue of night access. When it was suggested that walkers would have an obligation to inform the relevant authority, as proposed in the amendment, the Minister, Mr Meacher, thought it was a very interesting idea and well worth looking at because it may be a way to get out of this muddle. We are in a muddle. My noble friend has suggested a way out of it. I rather hope the Government will take it more seriously than they have some of the other suggestions.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, this is a balanced amendment. Subsection (1) provides that a person who intends to enter or to remain on access land at night should give prior notice of his intention to the access authority. Subsection (2) provides that the access authority should, in turn, give to any person giving such notice information about restrictions and activities and should enable owners to obtain information as to the notices which have been given. It works both ways, and I give credit to the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, for that.
  As to the first part of the amendment, we had a lengthy debate on the matter earlier today. The Government put forward the view that night access was comparable to day access and that no general restrictions should apply to night access which do not apply to day access. The debate covered a whole range of issues about night access, including the safety of

  1051
  people enjoying the right to night access as well as of those living on or owning access land. At the conclusion of the debate the House decided that amendments which would restrict night access should not be accepted. On that basis, if your Lordships will forgive me, I shall not repeat the arguments on night access generally or even on safety of night access. I consider that they have been adequately aired and that the issue raised in subsection (1) of the amendment has already been resolved.
  The issue raised in subsection (2) is an interesting and worthwhile one. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, for raising it. My noble friend Lord Hardy put it very well when he called for a code of conduct. Government Amendment No. 104 provides exactly that. It places a duty on the countryside bodies to issue a code of conduct and take other steps to provide information. We would expect the code of conduct to give guidance on safety issues, including safety at night.
  Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I hesitate to interrupt the Minister. But, given all the comments to which the Liberal Democrat Benches have been subjected, does the noble Lord agree that the amendment was brought forward by the Government in response to the amendment that we tabled in Committee?
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Yes, my Lords. This is a listening Government. There are occasions when we listen to Conservatives too! However, we consider that the issue of night access generally has been adequately aired.
  We support the thrust behind the second part of Amendment No. 30. Government Amendment No. 104 gives effect to that. On that basis, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, will see fit to withdraw the amendment.
  Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that helpful and gracious reply. I am also grateful to all those who have taken part in this interesting debate. I am glad that the noble Lord fully appreciates the thrust of subsection (2) of Amendment No. 30. It may be that when we come to discuss Amendment No. 104 he will be able to cast even more light on what he hopes the guidelines will contain.
  We have had a reasonable debate and a promise from the Minister that the guidelines will cover my basic point in subsection (2). Meanwhile, pending further developments—
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I would not wish to be misunderstood. The guidelines will cover safety at night. I am not saying that they will cover the provision of information in individual cases, as provided by subsection (2) of Amendment No. 30.
  Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, the Government have been known to respond to various arguments that have been put forward. Clearly, my new clause has certainly been considered by the Government. They
  1052
  have referred to their Amendment No. 104. It may well be that there will be some further development in government thinking. Therefore, on the understanding that I may come back to the matter at a later stage if needs be, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Schedule 2 [Restrictions to be observed by persons exercising right of access]:
  Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 31:
  Page 64, line 19, leave out from ("not") to end of line and insert ("entitle a person to be on any land if, in or on that land, he—").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 31 and speak also to Amendments Nos. 33, 36, 44, 48, 148 and 149 tabled in my name in this grouping.
  Amendment No. 31, together with Amendments Nos. 44 and 48, makes minor drafting changes to ensure that Schedule 1 is consistent with the words in Clause 2(1) which deals with the loss of right of access. Government Amendment No. 33 relates to the feeding of livestock and adds that to the list of restricted activities set out in Schedule 2. We consider the amendment superior to Amendment No. 38, which deals with broadly the same subject.
  Government Amendment No. 36 adds a new restriction of interfering with,
  "any fence, barrier or other device designed to prevent accidents to people or to enclose livestock".
  It provides that such interference would not be restricted if the person had "reasonable excuse", but it deals with the main offence. Again, Opposition Amendment No. 39 tabled in the name of the noble Baroness and others deals with a similar area, but we suggest that our amendment is preferable.
  I shall need to spend a little more time on Amendments Nos. 148 and 149. They relate to a recommendation made by the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation, which made a number of recommendations relating to three areas covered in Part I of the Bill: the general restrictions in Schedule 2; the restrictions on dogs in the same schedule; and the use of the discretionary closure power in Clause 21. These amendments deal only with the first of these; namely, the general restrictions.
  The Select Committee was concerned that the power to vary Schedule 2 general restrictions could be used to remove restricted activities which could alter the balance of the Bill against the landowner. The committee accordingly recommended as its preferred option that the power should be deleted. We have considered this recommendation very carefully. On balance, we consider that the power to vary the restricted activities is a useful and important one. It will enable activities which have been overlooked or leisure pursuits which become popular at a later date to be added to the list. That said, we agree with the Select Committee that the power should be used sparingly. We have proposed therefore the Select Committee's alternative recommendation; namely, that such matters should be subject to affirmative

  1053
  resolution rather than negative resolution, as is currently provided for in the Bill. Amendments Nos. 148 and 149 will achieve that. I beg to move.
  Earl Peel: My Lords, perhaps I may speak to Amendments Nos. 34, 35 and 40 which have been grouped with the government amendments. I turn first to Amendment No. 34. Schedule 2 provides that any walker who indulges in,
  "hunting, shooting, fishing, trapping or snaring"
  on access land, or who,
  "has with him any engine, instrument or apparatus"
  for that purpose will be deemed a trespasser. However, the schedule does not specifically apply the same sanction to anyone who interferes with a snare or a trap, which was a point I raised in Committee.
  I believe that the Government should clarify the situation, ideally in Schedule 2, so that it is put on to the face of the Bill. Unfortunately, such interference is a common occurrence, causing immense irritation to farmers and keepers and wasting much valuable time. Someone who destroys a trap or snare would clearly be in breach of a regulation. I accept that. However, the status of someone who interferes with such an instrument remains unclear. There is a difference between the two. I should be grateful if the Minister could respond to that point.
  Ideally, I should like to see the word "interfering" put on to the face of the Bill in Schedule 2. Failing that, I hope that the Minister will, at the very least, confirm that interference with such an instrument will be specifically mentioned in the code of conduct. It should not be dealt with simply in the catch-all paragraphs 1(o) and (p).
  Turning to Amendment No. 35, the Minister kindly accepted my Amendment No. 111 in Committee, which sought to preclude anyone trapping anything on access land. However, the word "trapping" should have been included in a complementary amendment in order to preclude anyone having with them any instrument or apparatus for trapping. This is a drafting amendment which I feel confident the Minister will accept.
  The list of criminal activities covered by Amendment No. 40 were removed from Schedule 2 in another place and were embraced by paragraph 1(d) of Schedule 2, which covers all criminal offences. This is quite an important point. In Committee we discussed the potential lay-out of Schedule 2. We discussed which offences should be specifically mentioned and which offences should not. We also discussed whether it would be helpful to differentiate between those acts of trespass which are criminal and those which will be subject to civil law.
  I do not know whether the Minister has given this suggestion any further consideration. If he has not, presumably he will dismiss what I have just said. If he has, perhaps he may come forward with something which will be helpful to the lay-out of Schedule 2. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, also supported the suggestion at Committee stage.
  1054
  In view of the serious nature of the offences covered by the amendment—which were excluded from Schedule 2 in another place—can the Minister assure me that, if they are not to be mentioned in the schedule, they will be specifically referred to in the code of conduct?
  10 p.m.
  Lord Monson: My Lords, I have added my name to Amendments Nos. 38 and 39. I cannot, of course, speak for the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, but I am happy to accept the Government's alternative amendments—not least because they appear rather higher up on the list of prohibitions and are therefore slightly more likely to be spotted by members of the general public.
  I support Amendment No. 34, which has been brought forward by the noble Earl, Lord Peel. I do not think it is replicated anywhere else in the list of amendments. It is a much more significant amendment than it may appear at first glance. I also support Amendment No. 40.
  It may be that the Government will argue that the points made by the noble Earl are covered elsewhere—we shall have to wait for the Minister's reply—but certainly Amendment No. 34 is very important.
  Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, Amendment No. 37 in this grouping, which stands in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Miller, is, in a non-technical sense, consequential on government Amendment No. 36, which deals with interference with fences, barriers and so on. Very often the means of keeping people out, or warning them to keep out, is a notice rather than a fence. It seems to me that it is appropriate to put into this list of items,
  "interferes with any written warning or other notice".
  Your Lordships heard at the previous stage of the difficulties of maintaining notices on land. As many landowners will wish to give warnings where that may be appropriate, it is appropriate on our part to protect the existence of such notices.
  Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, perhaps I may offer one brief comment on the amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Peel. If the Minister is to act on the noble Earl's advice, will he insert either the word "legal" or "legitimate" before "traps"?
  I know that the noble Earl would not dream of using gin traps on his land, but some people still do. Not all that many years ago there was a gin trap placed on a child's nature trail in South Yorkshire. Some people still use traps which are banned under the 1981 Act. If I saw such an illegal trap, I should move it. I would not wish to be prosecuted for doing so. I hope that the question of the legitimacy of the trap will be considered in any of my noble friend's comments or actions.
  The Duke of Montrose: My Lords, if I am not mistaken, government Amendment No. 33 was tabled in response to an amendment brought forward in

  1055
  Committee by myself and the noble Lords, Lord Soulsby and Lord Plumb, to do with the introduction of disease factors into rural areas. In this case, the amendment deals with the feeding of animals— presumably in response to the question of infection carried to pigs. This provision helps to deal with the question of introducing viruses.
  The amendment that we debated in Committee sought to include a reference to the introduction of parasites as a result of dogs being improperly dosed. At present, no other amendment on the Marshalled List deals with the subject. If the Government do not intend to bring forward a provision, we may return to the matter at Third Reading.
  Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, when the Minister replies, will he say a little more about Amendments Nos. 148 and 149? He skipped lightly over them and said that the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee had stated that the regulation provisions were tipped too strongly against farmers and landowners. The Government seem to have disagreed with the committee in wanting to tip them that way, which is rather unusual. Will the Minister tell the House exactly what are the implications of that?
  Lord Luke: My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 38 and 39. I agree entirely with what the noble Lord, Lord Monson, said about Amendment No. 38. Government Amendment No. 33 is much better worded than ours, so I shall not move it.
  The Minister briefly mentioned Amendment No. 39. We have a certain amount of doubt about the government amendment. The current list of restrictions appears to omit any reference to interference with mineshaft covers, fences, etc, designed to safeguard the public. The wording of our amendment is lifted straight from the precedent in the Peak District national park by-laws for access agreement land. Tampering may not involve criminal damage, so would not be covered by the general prohibition on criminal activity on access land. I should like to hear more about that from the Minister.
  Lord Whitty: My Lords, perhaps I may deal first with the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour. The Select Committee indicated that it thought that these powers would allow us, by regulation, to remove restricted activities as well as add restricted activities and accordingly recommended that the power should be deleted. We considered that that would mean that the Bill could not be updated. For example, had this Bill been passed 15 years ago, it would not have included a reference to hang-gliding, and it might well have included reference to certain activities that no longer occur in the countryside. We felt that in order to keep the Bill up to date we needed some way of dealing with that situation by regulation.
  The Select Committee said that if the House disagreed with the recommendation, these powers should be subject to affirmative resolution. We have adopted that position rather than the first position
  1056
  proposed by the Select Committee. That perhaps explains the position. The noble Baroness is right: we have not accepted the initial advice, but we have accepted the alternative advice from the committee.
  In relation to Amendment No. 34 tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Peel, it is clear to us that if paragraphs 1(o) and 1(p) are taken together—paragraph 1(p) refers to "disturbance"—that must include interference. We therefore do not think that an additional reference to interference on the face of the Bill is necessary. If that needs clarifying in subsequent codes, we shall consider doing so; however, I believe that the point is fully covered in the schedule as it stands.
  Amendment No. 35 refers to trapping. I accept that, logically, we should include trapping. I can reassure my noble friend Lord Hardy—who I would hate to see charged with a criminal offence—that all these activities relate to activities being carried out lawfully. Therefore, there is no need to repeat that in this context.
  In Amendment No. 40, the noble Earl, Lord Peel, seeks to reinstate the restrictions that were deleted on Report. Instead of picking out particular criminal activities, we have placed the reference to "any criminal activity" in the schedule. That is not perhaps quite as tidy as we would wish because the other offences in the schedule are basically similar, although some could become criminal offences—such as the destroying of an egg. However, the blanket reference to all criminal offences subsumes all those that are suggested in Amendment No. 40. The remaining specified offences are, essentially, criminal or specific offences. I give way.
  Earl Peel: My Lords, I am obliged. Perhaps the Minister could respond to my other question. In view of the fact that those very important items were deleted in another place and are now covered by the catch-all provision in paragraph 1(d) of Schedule 2, I asked the Minister whether it would be possible for them to be mentioned in the code of practice. They are so important that, quite frankly, it would be disingenuous not to draw the general public's attention to them as being an offence under the Bill.
  Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am being careful not to commit myself absolutely to putting anything in the code that will become the responsibility of the Countryside Agency. However, no doubt this is an issue which the agency should address for the sake of clarification—
  Lord Monson: My Lords, is depositing rubbish or leaving litter a criminal offence? I accept that the other subjects referred in Amendment No. 40 are criminal offences, but surely leaving rubbish is not actually criminal?
  Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am sorry to presume to correct the noble Lord, but I believe that litter offences are criminal offences in almost all circumstances.

  1057
  I turn to Amendment No. 37, tabled in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. This amendment would add a restriction of interfering with any written notice or warning without reasonable excuse. We consider that the various activities that this might include are already covered by the restrictions in the sense that debasing or uprooting a sign would clearly be criminal damage in any case. If the sign were vandalised or moved, the criminal damage would be caused. Therefore, it is already covered.
  I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Luke, for accepting that our Amendment No. 33 might be slightly superior to his own. However, he does not seem to accept the same in relation to Amendment No. 39. Our amendment is slightly wider in that it relates to tampering with anything. Clearly that would include tampering with any fences, notices or anything that was erected to protect a particular feature that may be dangerous, or which may require information to be conveyed. We therefore think that the question of a mine shaft is covered, as are other features. If we were to specify mine shafts, the effect of the clause might, by omission, imply that those items not mentioned were not covered. We believe that our general clause is better.
  Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, the Minister indicated that our amendment is covered through general provisions. But is there any difference between warnings, fences and barriers? If tampering with a notice is a criminal offence, then surely breaking down a fence is also a criminal offence.
  Lord Whitty: My Lords, there may be a point of logic in that to which I cannot quickly respond. However, if someone climbs over a fence and inadvertently damages it, that may not actually be a criminal offence in itself. We are talking here about deliberate damage to a notice. I believe that that is what lies behind the noble Baroness's amendment. The situation is clearly covered.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  10.15 p.m.
  Viscount Bledisloe Viscount Bledisloe moved Amendment No. 32:
  Page 64, line 23, at end insert ("which is at all times on a short lead").
  The noble Viscount said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 41 and 43. We now come to the question of dogs. Amendment No. 32 seeks to ensure that if dogs are to be allowed on the land we are discussing they must be on a short lead at all times of the day and throughout the year.
  Amendment No. 41 simply defines a "short lead" as a fixed short lead, not an expandable, "fishing line" lead which allow dogs to range freely. Amendment No. 43 merely deletes certain paragraphs which would become unnecessary if Amendment No. 32 were accepted.
  The Bill already recognises that dogs off leads can cause harm in that it excludes dogs off leads from certain land between March and July. Government Amendment No. 118 recognises that dogs can cause harm to grouse and to lambing. However, the Government do not appear to consider the position of other wildlife, pregnant sheep, sheep which have young lambs or other stock. Dogs off leads have no place in the provisions of the Bill. The Bill allows people to roam across country; it does not allow dogs to roam freely.
  I do not know but I suspect that few serious ramblers want to take dogs with them. Those who want to walk the dog do so on footpaths or in their local areas. Even if some ramblers wished to take their dogs with them, it would be wholly unbalanced to allow dogs to roam loose and to damage the occupier, the land and the fauna and flora on it. If a dog is to be allowed access to the land in question, it must be kept on a lead. The right to roam must not be extended to dogs. Once a dog is off the lead, it may become uncontrollable and may chase animals and scare birds off their nests. That danger appears to be recognised as regards grouse but does not appear to be recognised as regards any other bird. A dog off the lead can cause infinite damage and enormous trouble to an owner. This Bill should not concern itself with dogs off leads. I beg to move.
  Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, Amendment No. 45 which stands in my name is concerned with the matter we are discussing. I should be greatly obliged if the noble Lord did not press his amendment for the following reason. However, I shall mention other reasons later.
  We have heard of the dangers and hazards in access areas. Often search parties spend long hours on cold nights looking for missing people. They might not find them without the help of rescue dogs. One cannot keep a rescue dog on the lead if it is to do its job properly. I understand the reservations and the anxieties that the noble Lord has mentioned but I believe that a slightly different approach needs to be adopted.
  Lord Northbourne: My Lords, I make a plea on behalf of all those hill farmers who raise sheep—as I used to do—for whom the issue of dogs is critical. If a dog which has a taste for chasing sheep runs loose off the lead on a moor it will become uncontrollable. At certain times of the year it can cause thousands of pounds worth of damage. The crop for a hill farmer is lambs. If sheep heavy with lamb are chased the farmer will lose perhaps many lambs. A large dog can pull down a ewe. There must be provision in the Bill for dogs to be kept under control if one is to have the support of the hill farming community.
  Baroness Byford: My Lords, I have put my name to the amendment. I agree with the sentiments of the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne. I declare an interest as someone who has always had a dog—some more controllable than others. We have a rescue gun dog; we took her in at the age of three. She is well trained but,

  1059
  given half the chance, her natural instinct is to chase. I strongly support the amendment. I shall not go over the arguments so well expressed by the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, and the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne. I understand the reservations of the noble Lord, Lord Hardy. I believe that this provision is crucial. I hope that the Government will be persuaded by the arguments.
  Earl Peel: My Lords, I, too, support the amendment. I have an identical amendment which is grouped separately, and somewhat cleverly, with government Amendment No. 118 relating to dogs on grouse moors. I have no doubt that that has been done in order to silence me! However, I shall welcome the Minister's amendment with open arms. But that does not detract from the fact that the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, raises an important point. The noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, is right. I suggest that this is probably the most crucial issue.
  The Government have come a long way. We shall discuss Amendment No. 118 which I welcome. But dogs will be a problem on any land. Wildlife, livestock and game birds exist on land other than grouse moors. We cannot ignore those areas. It is obvious that dogs on extended leads will cause more disturbance than those on short leads. There are increasing numbers of those leads—the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, described them as fishing lines—which can extend to 20 or 30 yards. A dog on an extended lead will inevitably be considerably more out of control than a dog on a short lead.
  I draw noble Lords' attention to the independent report produced by Professor Hudson for the Countryside Agency. He concluded that dogs were seven times more likely than humans to create disturbance to wildlife. I suggest that a dog on a long lead, which is to all intents and purposes out of control, comes into that category. I believe that the majority of dog owners would agree the principle that the Bill is about people; it is not about dogs. Any greater degree of freedom accorded to people must come with additional responsibility. Part of that responsibility is keeping dogs under control. Under control inevitably means short leads. I welcome the noble Viscount's amendment.
  Lord Monson: My Lords, I support the amendment and the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne. Within the past fortnight I have read in a respected broadsheet newspaper that 24,000 sheep a year are killed by dogs. That seems a staggering figure. However, no one has challenged the report so I can only assume that it is true.
  The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I apologise for intervening in the debate so late. I support the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe. Many people will say that their dogs have never chased sheep. We must remember that a dog is a natural enemy to a sheep and a sheep will run when it sees a dog. Similarly, a cow
  1060
  with a calf will run towards a dog when it sees one to attack it. If the dog is under close control, the owner has a chance to do something about it.
  Lord Monro of Langholm: My Lords, having carefully read the report of the Committee debates about dogs, I entirely support the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, about hill farming. The Minister seemed to give the impression in Committee that the majority of lambing happened off the hills and in lambing sheds, so the problems would not arise. That is not so. The majority of hill lambs, such as black faced lambs and Cheviots, are lambed on the hill. If there are dogs on the hill at the time, the risks are increased substantially.
  The Government should consider the issue carefully. The noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, put the matter very well. This is not a Bill to allow dogs to roam where they like; it is designed to deal with people. They have to accept that their dogs must be under control. That is not universally accepted.
  I occasionally go to the United States. In Maryland, dogs can never be taken for a walk without a short lead, even in urban areas. The police enforce that law rigorously. It is not unusual to insist on dogs being under control. We have an opportunity to do something really helpful to hill farmers, who are going through a dreadful period at the moment.
  Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen: My Lords, I may be a lone voice in the Chamber this evening, but I do not support Amendment No. 43. When we debated the issue at Second Reading, I said that, as someone who was born and brought up in the countryside and had lived most of my life there, I believed that dogs should be firmly restricted in the countryside. I was pleased when I saw the Bill. There had been a wide debate before it was published and a lot of views had been put forward about when dogs should be on leads. I felt that the Minister had walked the tightrope of those views well and the Bill was a good compromise.
  I do not want the restrictions on dogs to be removed. I am pleased that the protection for sitting birds on all access land has been extended until the end of July. I had supported that previously. I am pleased that measures have been adopted to regulate dogs in the vicinity of livestock. That is also sensible. Under Chapter II, local restrictions can be made to suit any area. That is important, because the countryside differs from area to area. Your Lordships have given graphic descriptions of many different areas.
  I make a plea for retaining the restrictions on dogs in the schedule, because local restrictions can be made under Chapter II. For example, in hill farming areas local authorities can introduce restrictions to suit local conditions.
  Lord Mancroft: My Lords, I support the amendment. Like my noble friend Lord Peel, I think that dogs are probably the most important issue in the Bill. Like most of those who have spoken, I am a dog owner and a dog lover. I would take my dog anywhere if I could, but it is vital to keep them away from

  1061
  ground-nesting birds, other wildlife and sheep, cattle and horses. Wild ponies breed on Exmoor and Dartmoor, which are access areas. The last thing that they need is dogs near to them.
  Short leads are vital. We keep talking about dogs being out of control. As has already been said, it does not matter so much what the dog is doing; the important fact is the dog's presence. If a dog is 10 yards off a track going past a nest because it is on a long lead, the effect is the same as if it were off the lead and running wild. It will push the hen off the nest. It is absolutely essential that dogs are on short leads. A dog on a long lead has the same effect as one off the lead. Therefore, I strongly support the amendment.
  10.30 p.m.
  Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, for the reasons stated by other noble Lords, we on these Benches certainly support the concept of defining a lead as being of fixed length. We believe that the suggested restrictions in relation to dogs are a positive move forward in setting out what is expected of dog owners.
  However, perhaps of all the issues that require the most thought from the Government in respect of persistent offenders, the one relating to dogs is the most difficult. Dog owners frequently walk the same route, and those who offend by frequently letting their dogs off the lead when they should not do so are likely to continue to follow that pattern. As a dog owner, I know how much fun a dog has when it is off the lead. Certainly, the temptation is to allow it to be off the lead more than it should be.
  I shall be interested to hear the Minister's reply to Amendment No. 42. I have some reservations about being more restrictive in relation to dogs than we need to be. There is no doubt that some people much enjoy walking with their dogs, but the interests of livestock must certainly be at the forefront of our considerations when we discuss these amendments. I believe that we are three-quarters of the way there in terms of restrictions on dogs, but there is still a little way to go.
  The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I had hoped that the noble Baroness would be a little more forthcoming. As usual, she is sitting on the fence. She is saying that a restriction in terms of a fixed length for leads is required, but she refuses to tell the House what length of lead she believes dogs should be on.
  Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I am sorry. Perhaps I should have expanded on the matter, but I was trying to save the time of the House. The noble Earl may remember that in Committee I tabled an amendment which specified two metres in length.
  The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I simply wondered whether the noble Baroness had had further thoughts and had changed her mind. I am surprised that she did
  1062
  not say that at the time. What she has just said rather supports Amendment No. 46 in the name of my noble friend Lord Peel, which we shall come to shortly.
  I thoroughly support what the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, said. At Second Reading I mentioned an incident that I witnessed in Richmond Park in which a dog chased deer. Such incidents will be far worse on the open hill.
  Lord Whitty: My Lords, although the noble Earl, Lord Peel, suggests that we cleverly group these amendments, the amendments are not the Government's choice. In my view, we have probably grouped the amendments quite illogically in that there are seven groups on dogs. Perhaps it would have been useful to discuss the various options together. In order to avoid future repetition, I believe that it may be sensible if I set out the Government's case.
  First, I accept the point made by the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, that this Bill concerns the rights of people rather than those of dogs. I might have been rather more convinced of the case for restricting dogs had the same arguments not come from noble Lords who have spent most of the evening arguing for greater restrictions on people in terms of access to the countryside. Nevertheless, I recognise that significant anxiety exists in relation to dogs in the countryside. Therefore, I believe that it is sensible to address these issues.
  However, I believe that dog owners have rights, too. Dog owners are also people and many of them in the countryside wish to use access land, particularly that situated close to villages, in order to exercise their dogs. Therefore, a degree of balance is required in the approach to dogs as it is in the approach to other matters.
  The Government have considered carefully all the points made at earlier stages. The totality of our position, as largely outlined by my noble friend Lady Gibson of Market Rasen, is that we have provided a fairly comprehensive restriction in relation to the management of dogs in the countryside.
  First, we said that dogs must be kept on lead on all access land for four months of the year, from 1st March to 31st July. We said that they must always be on lead at all times in the vicinity of livestock on any access land. We have given the landowner powers to exclude dogs from fields or areas in which lambing is taking place and to exclude dogs from moors which are managed for grouse shooting, as the noble Earl, Lord Peel, said. That includes vast tracts of the countryside available for access. We have made provision for stronger local restrictions on dogs including complete bans on dogs where that is necessary for specific local reasons. Those bans could be reinforced by by-laws.
  We consider that that package of measures and restrictions on dogs meets explicitly most of the specific objections made in this argument.

  1063
  I am prepared to consider one further change relating to the question of short leads. I am not prepared to accept the noble Viscount's amendment which requires short leads at all times in all places on all access land. That is, to put it at its mildest, excessive. Where we define requirements for dogs to be on lead, then the requirement that they be on short leads should apply and the two metres referred to in the recent exchange between the noble Earl and the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, would be appropriate. There are some difficulties here in that an extendable lead can be used as a short lead, but that can probably be addressed.
  Therefore, I would be prepared to accept something along the lines of Amendments Nos. 46 or 49, or both, or some combination thereof.
  Beyond that, I do not believe that we should move further in restricting dogs in access land. Are we saying that in all these acres about to be opened to access there should be no place—a bit of commonland close to the village, a bit of downland where historically people have tried to exercise dogs and have been legally forbidden to do so—where we can allow a dog to run free? That would send a very odd message to millions of dog owners, particularly those who live in the countryside.
  The reality of the matter is that there are more dog owners than ramblers and landowners. Therefore, their interests do have to be reflected, at least partially, within this Bill.
  The package of amendments that the Government is putting forward in the Bill and in Amendment No. 118 meet most of the specific objections to dogs or dogs running loose. The amendment of the noble Viscount goes too far. I hope he will not press it.
  I shall not repeat this on subsequent amendments, but apart from Amendments Nos. 46 and 49 I will not favour the subsequent amendments either.
  Viscount Bledisloe: My Lords, I readily confess to the noble Lord, Lord Hardy, that I had not considered his point about rescue dogs and it merits further thought. My initial reaction is that it would not be inhibited by this amendment. I do not believe a rescue dog comes on to land by using the right to roam given by this Bill. It comes on either by the tacit consent of the owner or in an emergency. The point needs further consideration. I accept fully that a rescue dog on a lead is probably a contradiction in terms. I shall certainly take that point on board.
  There is no intention on my part to press Amendment No. 43. It would be inconsequential if the earlier amendment had been passed.
  The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, said that her dog has fun off the lead. But the dog has fun because it is doing the things that are so harmful to the landowner—chasing animals, pursuing smells and disappearing down rabbit holes. It is those activities that are going to harm the wildlife and livestock.
  1064
  I fully accept that by keeping the dog on the lead, I am inhibiting the fun of the dog but that is because the purpose of the Bill is to balance the right of a person to roam against the legitimate needs of the landowner and conservation and so on. I accept that if an amendment on these lines were passed, some dogs would have a less jolly time. But they are having a jolly time at the expense of the things that we need to protect.
  I must confess that I thought the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, about the source of the amendment was cheap and unworthy of the way in which he has otherwise conducted himself. Those who are putting forward amendments are seeking to allay the very legitimate fears of those in the countryside. Some amendments concern what people do; others concern what dogs do.
  Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, asked whether it is really being said that there is no place on any kind of access land on which dogs can be allowed to run free. I accept that there may be some relatively rare pieces of access land on which dogs could be allowed to run free. I am ready to consider something on the lines of what I put forward in relation to night access; that is, that normally dogs should be kept on leads but the Countryside Agency can, in certain circumstances, certify such land as fit for dogs off leads.
  Earl Peel: My Lords, it may be helpful for him to know that paragraph 6 of Schedule 2 provides such a derogation power.
  Viscount Bledisloe: My Lords, again, I shall have to consider that. But the essence of the matter is that the majority of access land will be unsuitable for dogs off leads. The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, almost admitted that when he said there will be occasional pieces of land—commons and so on—where dogs could be allowed off leads. I hope that perhaps he and I could meet to try to devise something which recognises that fact.
  In the light of the need to deal with that and the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hardy, about rescue dogs, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 33:
  Page 64, line 28, at end insert—
  ("(ga) feeds any livestock,").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  [Amendments Nos. 34 and 35 not moved.]
  Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 36:
  Page 64, line 38, at end insert—
  ("(la) without reasonable excuse, interferes with any fence, barrier or other device designed to prevent accidents to people or to enclose livestock,").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  [Amendments Nos. 37 to 41 not moved.]
  Viscount Bledisloe Viscount Bledisloe moved Amendment No. 42:
  Page 65, line 13, at end insert—
  (" .—( ) Where a person persistently fails to comply with any restriction in this Schedule relating to dogs on any access land, the access authority or any person interested in that land may seek an exclusion order in respect of that person under section 43 of the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000.
  ( ) Without prejudice to the generality, a person shall be deemed to have persistently failed to comply with a restriction if—

  (i) having had his attention drawn to a failure by him to comply with a restriction, he fails again to comply with that restriction during the next 24 hours; or

  (ii) he fails to comply with a restriction on three occasions in any period of twenty-eight days.").

  The noble Viscount said: My Lords, we now return to the vexed question of what one does with people who persistently offend. Here we are dealing with people who persistently offend, particularly in relation to dogs. It may well be asked—and I anticipate that the Government will ask—why dogs should be in any different position in relation to this matter generally. The answer is that offences with dogs will be the most frequent and difficult to control. People will let dogs off their leads and, when they are rebuked, they will put their dogs back on them. No sooner are they over the brow of the hill than they will let their dogs off their leads again. That is exactly the experience of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, on Hampstead Heath when he tries to rebuke people for not keeping their dogs on a lead. If people lapse on Hampstead Heath, where a lot of people are looking, how much more will they lapse on open moorland? I fail to see how any landowner will cope with people who disregard the rules without some protection.
  The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said that such a provision seeks to make walkers into criminals but that is not so. We are seeking to take sanctions not against walkers but people who disregard the rules. It is just as illogical to say that one is seeking to make drivers into criminals with laws against speeding or illegal parking. A person is entitled to drive but there are restrictions on what he is allowed to do. If he does not obey them, he becomes liable to criminal sanctions. A person is entitled to a right of access but if he persistently flouts the rules, that is not turning walkers into criminals but turning rule breakers into criminals.
  The noble Lord's other argument was that such a provision will make trespass an offence, which it has never been—so that is a change in the law. That is a wholly illogical statement that arises only because the Government have chosen to say that the only sanction of consequence against breaking the rules is to make
  1066
  the individual a trespasser. The noble Lord shakes his head but that is so. The Government are giving a right and saying, "If you break the rules, you will become a trespasser". They could just as easily have said, "If you break the rules regularly, you will become subject to the criminal law". The way that the Government have chosen to phrase the Bill allows the noble Lord to invoke the argument that we are trying to change the law of trespass. In fact, the amendment would change the way in which the Bill is to be regulated. I beg to move.
  10.45 p.m.
  Baroness Byford: My Lords, I take the opportunity to thank the Government for agreeing to review the matter of short fixed leads because that will help. While the Minister has given way on grouse and the protection of game, the whole issue of wildlife is not included. That may be an oversight.
  Many people who live and work in the countryside are concerned about dogs. If there is nothing to stop some dog owners ignoring the rules, they will persist. Wardens in some parks know that dogs are kept on leads until they are out of sight, then released.
  The rules in the Bill are few and simple. Anyone visiting the countryside caught breaking the rules would be required to leave the land for 72 hours—although that will not stop some people. The same should apply in relation to dogs. Many organisations have expressed concern about the effects of dogs on the countryside. They include the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, which represents a large number of qualified professionals—many of whom are experienced in matters affecting the rural environment. We have received submissions also from the Country Landowners' Association, Countryside Alliance and National Farmers Union.
  I hope that the Minister will not dismiss the amendment, thinking that there is no need for it. I assure him that there is a need for some sanctions in the countryside.
  Earl Peel: My Lords, I support my noble friend and the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe. In principle this is the same argument as we debated on Amendment No. 24. Like the noble Viscount, I do not want to be accused of assuming that the two arguments are the same. I do not wish to rehearse the arguments.
  However, there is the point that I sprung on the noble Viscount. In Schedule 2 there is an important provision which gives the local authority, by direction, powers to derogate and, therefore, to amend parts of Schedule 2 that refer specifically to dogs. It would not be difficult to work on the principle that there would be a blanket restriction on dogs and derogated powers invoked in local areas by local authorities if there was a tradition in that part of the access area for dogs to exercise the right to roam, or however one describes it. It can be done.

  1067
  The central point of the argument, as has been made so many times, is that this is such a key issue in the countryside that I hope that the Government take seriously the points that have been made.
  Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, we are not able to support this amendment. We have commented before on the creation of new offences and this is a similar situation. We believe that three strikes and you and your dog are out would be too draconian. The analogy has been made with driving offences, but I do not believe that there is a possibility of dogs having points on their licences which may lead to disqualification.
  The problem is not of a dog entering land, but dogs attacking sheep. I hope that we shall hear from the Minister that there are sanctions on that type of event. We feel that this amendment proposes more than is required to deal with such situations as have been put before your Lordships.
  Lord Whitty: Amendment No. 42 deals with sanctions rather than scope, which I did not tackle fully previously. As the noble Baroness has said, it creates a new offence and it creates an offence in an area where there is no appropriate parallel sanction. We have heard this argument in relation to breaches of other restrictions and I shall not repeat the arguments expressed by my noble friend Lord McIntosh.
  In this context, exclusion orders are not an appropriate mechanism for dealing with civil matters, such as breaches of restrictions. They are meant to deal with serious criminal offences which may attract custodial sentences. Failure to keep a dog on a lead is not an appropriate situation for an exclusion order. Of course, where there is a persistent problem, a landlord has the option—rather than going through the potentially lengthy procedure of obtaining an exclusion order—of applying for an injunction.
  Of course, the more important issue, as mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, is that if a dog does actual harm it is possible to claim damages and to impose greater restrictions, or it is possible to ban them completely. The access authority as the noble Earl, Lord Peel, has pointed out, can impose tighter restrictions. I would prefer things to be allowed if they are not restricted, whereas he tends to adopt the view that things are restricted unless they are allowed. Therefore, it is better to give local access authorities the ability to pass by-laws. If such by-laws are made, a breach of those restrictions could become a criminal offence. Therefore, this issue can be dealt with in that way. Using exclusion orders in this context simply for breach of the dog restrictions, as distinct from causing criminal damage, seems an inappropriate use of the Bill's provisions. I hope therefore that the noble Viscount will not pursue the amendment.
  The Countess of Mar: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, will he say whether other legislation enables a landowner who finds a dog worrying his sheep to deal with the matter, first, by warning the owner and eventually by being able to shoot it if it is caught worrying the sheep?
  Lord Whitty: My Lords, a dog worrying sheep is covered by earlier provisions and they include the ability to shoot the dog. I am not suggesting that that should be used in all instances as regards this matter but where damage is caused—for instance, worrying sheep—a criminal offence already exists.
  Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I have a question which could become important. If a dog while running on access land eats poison, where does the landowner or the dog owner stand?
  Lord Whitty: My Lords, that is an interesting question. I suspect that no liability arises from the rights of access because those rights are for people and not for dogs. Therefore, there will be no liability on the landowner. I am pretty confident with that answer but should my lawyers tell me otherwise I shall inform the noble Lord.
  Viscount Bledisloe: My Lords, the Minister says that when the dog has worried the sheep, killed many of them and many lambs have been lost something can be done about it. It is not much consolation to a farmer to know that a man can be prosecuted after his dog has caused such damage, nor is it a great consolation to the sheep which probably would rather not have been killed or been caused to abort.
  The point is that the farmer who sees dogs off the lead will have to chase after the man and tell him to return it to the lead. That is a bore. If the man disappears over the hill and lets the dog off again the farmer will have to go through the same process. That is much more than a bore; it is an infuriating irritation and a total waste of his time and effort. The person who makes it plain that he will not obey the rules is the problem.
  None the less, I fully accept that it would be wrong to press this topic on its own when the whole question of what is to be done with the offenders remains outstanding, Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 43 not moved.]
  Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 44:
  Page 65, line 17, leave out ("apply to a person who") and insert ("entitle a person to be on any land if he").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Hardy of Wath Lord Hardy of Wath moved Amendment No. 45:
  Page 65, line 18, at end insert ("unless it is with the permission of the owner or occupier of the land").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, I do not want to take too long, but this is a serious matter. I fully recognise that dogs, especially those owned by irresponsible people, cause enormous havoc in the countryside. I hope that my remarks will not be seen as defending them.
  I should first declare an interest: I am an honorary member of the Kennel Club, but what I intend to say tonight are my comments and not the club's. I interrupted the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, to point out that his amendment would have prevented the use of the rescue dog, which inherently must be off the lead. But the Bill as it stands would also prevent many other dogs being off the lead.
  I remember living for a short time on a sheep farm in Scotland where I learnt a great deal about collies. My friend had one collie which he could tell to move ewes from one field to another without him having to leave the kitchen. Dogs are invaluable to shepherds but I wonder how they will manage if their collies have to be on leads, as proposed in the Bill.
  11 p.m.
  Viscount Bledisloe: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will reciprocate by giving way. This regulation applies only to those who exercise the right of access under the Bill. A shepherd who looks after his sheep does not come onto the land pursuant to the Bill but as of right as owner or occupier of the land. Nothing in this Bill affects anything that can be done at the moment; it relates only to those who exercise their right under the legislation.
  Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, if the noble Viscount is correct I am greatly relieved. Looking at the text of the Bill, I believe that there is doubt about it, although I am not a lawyer. I hate to think that a shepherd must manage without a collie. That is not the only problem which will arise. If people want to exercise their right of access and prepare for shooting grouse on 12th August they will have only 11 days during which their dogs can be free. If they are the owners of the land and the noble Viscount is correct, there is no problem. However, if visitors exercise their right of access it may be that, when we come to the election campaign, the Government will be accused of attacking shooting by the back door.
  Another activity which would be threatened is hound trailing. My noble friend Lord Bragg knows a great deal about it and may wish to assist the House with the benefit of his considerable experience in that field. It is reasonable to require that dogs are properly controlled, but I hate to think that in all the criticism about dogs there is inadequate awareness of what happens in areas under the aegis of the Kennel Club. I note that my noble friend Lord Hoyle has entered the House; I did not invite him to do so. I suddenly realised that his two dogs had received the Kennel Club's Good Citizen Award because of the splendid control and training which he devoted to them.
  1070
  At Cruft's, which is still the top dog show in the world, one sees the most astonishing achievements in the field of training, obedience and work. That activity is developing very rapidly. My noble friend Lord Whitty referred to the large number of dog owners. Increasing numbers are being drawn into the network of training, working trials and all the rest of it. It is a much larger activity than it was, say, five or six years ago; and certainly it has been the subject of tremendous development over the past 20 years. The large number of people involved in Kennel Club activities throughout the country need encouragement and commendation so that there are far fewer irresponsible dog owners and badly behaved dogs.
  Those who live in access areas are placed in particular difficulty. For example, tonight we have agreed that there should be a 20-metre protected area around each dwelling in access land in order that people can be exempt from the obligations of the Bill. That is not a long distance for the purposes of training dogs. When one trains dogs sometimes they must be let off the lead. If a dog is to learn to come to its owner or to stay it must be allowed off the lead for that purpose. It is essential that those who live on access land, or areas adjoining it, are not placed in a position where for a very large part of the year they are unable to take their dogs off the lead. That will not help the dog's conduct or training.
  In order to present the country with a balanced and sensible measure I commend this amendment to the House. It enables a farmer or landowner to give permission to his neighbours to exercise and train their dogs on his land. He knows whether they are capable of handling the dogs properly. That will not interfere with proper recreation, whether it be hound trailing, sheep dog trials, hound shows, village exemption dog shows and all the rest of it. Those activities can continue without much harm and provide reassurance and encouragement for those who wish their dogs to behave properly. I beg to move.
  Lord Whitty: My Lords, on this rare occasion perhaps I may agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe; I do not think the amendment is necessary. The restrictions relate to people exercising the right of access. They do not apply to the owner using dogs on his own land or the owner who gives permission to others to use dogs for whatever purpose on his land. Therefore, both the original situation which my noble friend described, and the training of hounds with the permission of the owner will not be affected by the restriction.
  Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. Perhaps he will consider this point. I go with my dogs to my friend's farm. I want my dogs to go for a walk with me. I know that they will not chase sheep. I know the way to stop dogs from chasing sheep. One puts them in a pen with a ram and they will never chase sheep again. Will my noble friend accept that I would need my friend's

  1071
  permission for my dogs to go off the lead? He should have the right to give such permission. That is all I ask for in the amendment. If my noble friend thinks it is unnecessary I have very real doubts as to whether that advice is accurate.
  Lord Whitty: My Lords, it is accurate. The owner can give permission both directly and tacitly, because if he does not object to you then no consequences arise. You are covered in the situation where you have not formally sought prior permission. If he does not object then no other sanction applies. Therefore, either way, you are allowed to exercise your dogs with the connivance or permission of the owner.
  Lord Bragg: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Hardy for raising what could be a regional problem.
  Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I am sorry to have to tell my noble friend that once the Minister has replied no one else may speak, other than the mover of the amendment who indicates whether or not he wishes to withdraw it.
  The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I thought that with Amendment No. 45 were grouped other amendments, including the Minister's Amendment No. 118 and my Amendments Nos. 119 and 210. I should like clarification from the noble Baroness as to whether they are to be spoken to at the same time.
  Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, strictly speaking, noble Lords who wish to speak to other amendments should do so before the Minister replies.
  The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, how can I speak to the Minister's amendment if he has not spoken to it himself?
  Lord Whitty: My Lords, we have a slightly confused position here. I thought I allowed time for noble Lords to speak and therefore my noble friend Lord Hardy followed me. If we are discussing all amendments in the group then I shall formally move Amendment No. 118 and allow the noble Earl to make his points and open the debate to others.
  Lord Bragg: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Hardy, my noble friend the Minister and the House for allowing me to discuss very briefly what might be a regional difficulty. I refer to trail hounds. They are bred for great speed in Cumbria from foxhounds. They race freely across open countryside or fell land for varying distances, but always several miles. Their pursuit is motivated by nothing more inflammatory than a trail of aniseed laid down
  1072
  immediately before the race. The many supporters of trail hounds find it financially possible to own and train one or two of these amiable dogs. They derive enormous satisfaction from that.
  Viscount Bledisloe: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, indicated that no other noble Lord could speak on this amendment. I do not quite understand why indulgence is given to those behind her that is not given to noble Lords in other parts of the House. There are other amendments which can be spoken to when they are called.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, all the amendments in the group can be spoken to. The Minister was replying to Amendment No. 45 but I take it that, tacitly, he was, with the leave of the House, dealing with an immediate issue that arose. The whole of the group is now open for debate and all noble Lords who have amendments in this group and indeed other noble Lords are at liberty to speak.
  Lord Marlesford: My Lords, does that, include the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Hardy, as I wanted to say something about it, or is that now ultra vires?
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, it includes the amendment of my noble friend Lord Hardy.
  Lord Bragg: My Lords, life is a struggle!
  The hound trails often bring life to remote villages in Cumbria which hold the meetings. They are a rich part of local life. The meetings are generally held in the evening.
  It is vital that it should be made absolutely clear that hound trailing is not subject to restrictions regarding the use of a lead. That would destroy a sport which plays such a unique role in Cumbria where, as elsewhere, country life and country living, especially in the hill farm areas, are now under great strain. I thank your Lordships for your indulgence.
  The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the Minister has now spoken to Amendment No. 118. I have tabled Amendments Nos. 119 and 120 as amendments to Amendment No. 118. As they are all grouped, perhaps it would be for the convenience of the House if I spoke to them now.
  There are a number of points arising from Amendment No. 118 on which I seek clarification. The amendment includes the words,
  "by taking such steps as may be prescribed".
  Who will prescribe those steps? Will it be open to the landowner to challenge the prescription? How will that work? Will the landowner require permission from the access authority in order to make this enactment? Will he have to consult the local access forum? None of that is clear in the amendment. I am concerned about the implications of the Bill.

  1073
  Another word in the amendment worries me. The final line of subsection (1) of Amendment No. 118 refers to persons who do not take "dogs" on the land. Does "dogs" include "a dog"? Does the plural include the singular? That is an important point for us to get straight. Those are the four points on Amendment No. 118 on which I seek clarification.
  When speaking to Amendment No. 32, the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, said that dog owners have rights. That statement cannot be let go without some challenge. I do not think that that is a correct statement. Dog owners have responsibilities but they do not have rights. It is one's personal choice to have a dog. Having made that personal choice, one then has responsibilities. One should not have rights. It is with regard to the exercise of those responsibilities that we are seeking clarification.
  I turn now to Amendments Nos. 119 and 120. While I welcome in principle Amendment No. 118, I cannot understand why it is restricted to moor,
  "managed for the breeding and shooting of grouse".
  My mind immediately went to the heathland of Norfolk, which I used to know quite well, where there used to be, and still are, a large number of wild English partridges. The land was managed for the benefit and preservation of the wild English partridge. At the same time, the land was managed for farming. That is no different from a grouse moor. I cannot understand why the Government have decided on a separate category of owner. If an owner is preserving and enhancing wildlife—on the one hand, grouse, of which I thoroughly approve—why should not the same benefits be given to an owner on the Norfolk heathland, which is likely to be scheduled under the Bill, to prevent dogs from going onto that land?
  The grey partridge is declining in numbers and needs to be encouraged. It has now been recognised throughout the House that a dog can cause considerable damage at nesting time. I am considering also the position of wildfowl and the wader species. As I pointed out in Committee, the Oxford English Dictionary defines a "heath" as marsh. If an owner manages a marsh for the benefit of wader species, then why should not that owner be given the same benefit as the owner of a moor? That explains the reasoning behind Amendments Nos. 119 and 120.
  I should have mentioned this earlier in my contribution, but I shall return to it now. Subsection (3) of the new clause in Amendment No. 118 limits the amount of land to,
  "a field or enclosure of not more than 15 hectares".
  That troubles me because a great deal of lambing still takes place on the open hill. From what was said
  1074
  earlier, it appears that it will be quite possible that a field or enclosure of 15 hectares might well be excluded as excepted land because it may be cultivated or more intensively farmed; namely, it is likely to be in-bye land. However, the owner of land just beyond that will not be protected in any way. Again, we shall see a division between owners. One owner with fields of 14.5 hectares will be able to prevent dogs from going on to his land. But the farmer up the road who undertakes his lambing on the open hill will receive no protection, even though those sheep on the open hill will probably be more scared by dogs. They will be more likely to panic than ewes lambing in a field.
  I once had the enjoyment and difficulty of working as a shepherd on the hill in Scotland. I have seen the consequences of stray dogs disturbing blackface sheep. Once those sheep begin to run—with no boundaries within a 15-hectare area—they simply run and run. At lambing time that can be very detrimental. The noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, made exactly the same point.
  I hope that the Minister will explain further the intentions behind Amendment No. 118. I hope, too, that he will look sympathetically on Amendments Nos. 119 and 120.
  11.15 p.m.
  Lord Jopling: My Lords, I was somewhat staggered to hear a treatise from the noble Lord opposite about hound trailing. I thought that I recognised in his contribution almost precisely some of the remarks I made at col. 1400 on 3rd October. I shall read out only one section:
  "For those of your Lordships who may not be familiar with hound trailing, a paraffin and aniseed drag is laid over a course of about 12 miles around the mountain tops".—[Official Report, 3/10/00; col. 1400.].
  If ever a case could be made for plagiarism, this is it. For a moment, I thought that the noble Lord was reading out my speech from another occasion. Having listened to the remarks that have been made as regards repeating what was said in Committee, I thought that it was all a bit hot.
  However, who am I to complain when someone on the opposite Bench takes exactly the view that I took in Committee about the need to ensure that no measures are taken in the Bill to interrupt the historic sport of hound trailing in the Lake District? I declared my own interest in Committee as the part owner of two trail hounds and also my membership of the Trail Hound Association, so I shall not declare those interests again.
  I am delighted to have an ally here, but I had expected, during the contribution made by the noble Lord, to have received some recognition of the author of his remarks.
  Lord Bragg: My Lords, I am very disappointed to have to say to the noble Lord that the remarks I made were my own.
  Baroness Young of Old Scone: My Lords, now that we have open season on this group of amendments, perhaps I may comment on a number of them.
  I support Amendments No. 46 and 49, which have been brought forward by the noble Earl, Lord Peel. If leads are required, they should be defined as short leads. I am grateful that the Minister is prepared to accept such a provision.
  As to Amendment No. 47, I wonder if I detect a smidgen of inconsistency on the part of the Minister. The amendment seeks to remove the ability to change by regulation the period during which dogs must be on leads. That is at the behest of recommendation 18 of the 24th report of the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation. I question whether the ability to change the dates by regulation should be quite so obediently given up.
  March until July is the period defined in the Bill, but that is only a best estimate of when it is most important for dogs to be on leads. It will be tested by experience. The ability to make changes in the future is quite important. Perhaps I may give an example. The dogs on leads issue concerns mainly ground-nesting birds. Climate change could quite quickly—we have seen signs of it already—alter the nesting and brooding dates of ground-nesting birds considerably. Therefore there might be a need to change the dates.
  If I understand the Select Committee process properly, an alternative is permitted under recommendation 19 which allows that, if the House should disagree with the recommendation that this provision be dropped from the Bill and considers that the powers should stay in the Bill, then they should be made subject to the affirmative procedure. The Minister agreed to the affirmative procedure under Amendments Nos. 148 and 149 for the whole of Schedule 2. It would be inconsistent if he did not retain flexibility for the future by agreeing to the affirmative procedure in respect of the ability to change the period during which dogs must be on leads.
  As to Amendment No. 118, I was slightly bemused by the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, and his partridges on heathland in East Anglia. Perhaps that is one of the reasons for the decline in partridge numbers. Trying to increase the numbers of partridges on heathland is probably one of life's more thankless tasks as it is a very inadequate and unsuitable habitat for partridges.
  However, I welcome Amendment No. 118, which goes further than previously towards addressing the
  1076
  concerns about the disturbance which dogs can cause to birds on moorlands. I do not think that, in isolation, the amendment addresses some of the continuing anxieties about the impact that dogs have on birds on other categories of access land. But there are a number of other provisions in the Bill, including the requirement to keep dogs on leads from 1st March to 31st July and the ability to restrict or exclude access for nature conservation purposes. Glued together, those are just about enough measures to reassure me.
  It is worth noting that that will mean that the nature conservation bodies will probably have to seek to close certain areas of access land at specific times of the year in order to safeguard wildlife which is particularly vulnerable to disturbance.
  Lord Marlesford: My Lords, I should like to return to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Hardy. I wonder if the Minister was right to dismiss the noble Lord's amendment on the grounds on which he appeared to dismiss it. This legislation will almost inevitably result in much litigation. In so far as Parliament can pre-empt the need for that litigation, it should do so.
  I understood the noble Lord, Lord Hardy, to say—I may have got it wrong—that where a person is using the normal right of access on the new land, and where the landowner or occupier chooses to allow that person to let his dog off the lead during a period when it otherwise would not be allowed off the lead, that is something which the owner or occupier should be empowered to do.
  The point that I believe the Minister was making was that the dog would be on the land for a different purpose from that provided for under the Bill. I do not think that that is the case. I believe that what the noble Lord, Lord Hardy, has in mind is that there are certain people who, when exercising their right of access, may, as an additional concession, be given by the owner or occupier the right to have their dogs off the lead. So they would not be on the land by virtue of some special provision; they would be on the land by virtue of this legislation and they would be given an additional privilege which the noble Lord, Lord Hardy, is seeking to write in to the Bill. That strikes me as extremely sensible.
  Otherwise, one person will allow his dog off the lead—which the Bill would not normally allow because he has been told by the owner that he can, and another person not so allowed will complain. It is a perfectly reasonable distinction for an owner to make, but the second person will ask: "Why are you allowed to have your dog off the lead?". The first will say: "Because the owner has told me that I can". The first will say, "But that has nothing to do with it. The Act says that you cannot have your dog off the lead; and if you can, I can". We want to avoid that kind of dispute and possible litigation. I wonder whether

  1077
  the Minister was being a little too facile in his dismissal of the noble Lord's amendment.
  The Duke of Montrose: My Lords, I should like to thank the Minister for some of the content of Amendment No. 118. He keeps telling us how he believes in balance, and that balance certainly comes through in the amendments, which makes it difficult to show unqualified gratitude for some of them. One in point is that relating to the introduction of disease. I thanked the Minister for what he had given on that occasion.
  I am merely looking at what has been allowed on controls on dogs around lambing fields. I thought that we had been given a marvellous new allowance—and then I came across the reference to 15 hectares. Like my noble friend Lord Caithness, I have the voices of my friends and neighbours ringing in my ears. They tell me about the problems that they have on wet days when a ewe is disturbed and jumps over a burn, and the lamb falls in and is found drowned down-river; or if she has twins and goes off and leaves one of them. Those are the problems of lambing on the open hillside. There is still a gap in the provision that we do not seem able to deal with.
  Lord Mancroft: My Lords, I should like to record my gratitude to the Government and the Minister for Amendment No. 118. The issue of ground nesting birds in general, and grouse in particular, is important. I am grateful to the noble Lord for considering it so carefully and for bringing forward this amendment.
  The amendment is important for another reason, beyond what it does. It is a recognition of the important economic contribution that grouse shooting now makes. My noble friend the Duke of Montrose spoke about the problems of dogs in relation to lambing on the hillside. Amendment No. 118 will be important for those areas. I suspect that grouse are of more economic value to that part of the country than are the sheep. Grouse have always been important. It is a sad indictment of the state of farming as we enter the new millennium that shooting rights are now of much greater value than farming rights, but that is the way the world is. I am immensely grateful to the Government for recognising that and bringing forward the amendment—even if I, too, am slightly concerned as to whether the plural, "dogs", in the last line of paragraph 3 also means "dog" in the singular. I have no doubt that the Minister will assure us on the matter.
  Lord Dubs: My Lords, perhaps I may ask a question about an amendment that is in this group but has not been spoken to; namely, Amendment No. 151.
  Earl Peel: My Lords, perhaps I may speak first to Amendments Nos. 46 and 49. I thank the Minister for accepting them in principle. He already knows how pleased I am about his introduction of Amendment No. 118. I echo the remarks just made by my noble friend Lord Mancroft.
  However, there is one further technical point as regards Amendment No. 118 that I should like to raise. I should be happier if the Minister would consider substituting for the word "owner" in the amendment the term "entitled person", which reflects Clause 21(3). The reason for that request is technical. I am told, although I was not aware of it, that approximately one-third of commons on which shooting rights exist are owned by public trustees. That being the case, substituting the word "owner" with the phrase "entitled person" would overcome the problem. I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord for introducing this amendment. I believe that it will do much to help overcome many of the problems that we have discussed.
  11.30 p.m.
  Baroness Byford: My Lords, I, too, thank the Minster for bringing forward Amendment No. 118. Perhaps I may add a few words here because I also made some points on the issue. The first referred to the fact that I do not believe that this provision includes wildlife. We are grateful that it obviously deals with the issue of the shooting of grouse, but it does not actually include wildlife. I am sure that we all believe that it should.
  Secondly, subsection (2) of the amendment refers to,
  "taking such steps as may be prescribed".
  Does the Minister know whether notice will have to be given as regards the time during which that restriction will apply? The third point, which was raised by my noble friends, relates to the whole question of lambing in the hill areas and still remains to be answered.
  Perhaps I may return to the wildlife point. Has the noble Lord considered the question of those birds that come to this country and rest on the marshes or on the other lands which are not defined in the legislation? That is why it would help enormously if wildlife were included in the provision. I shall not refer to the other amendments because the Minister will cover them.
  Amendment No. 151 seems to me to have been rather strangely placed on the Marshalled List. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, for drawing attention to it. We may find that there are some honeypot sites on access land. It is important, therefore, that there should be some provision as regards dog fouling. Some local authorities may believe that the dog fouling Act of 1996 is relevant in this respect and that it should be included. That is the reason for tabling Amendment No. 151.
  Lord Dubs: My Lords, perhaps I may make a brief comment. I was trying to understand the significance of Amendment 151. However, I believe that the noble Baroness has helped me. I understand that there have been occasions when dogs have fouled land with toxocariasis, which has had a damaging effect on farm animals. My concern is whether the amendment would provide some protection in those instances where necessary.
  Lord Whitty: My Lords, when responding to the previous group of amendments, I said that I thought we had struck the right balance. It is clear that some people wish to go further, but I am sticking to my balance. That inevitably means that some noble Lords will be disappointed. Perhaps I may explain that in terms of Amendment No. 118.
  Because of the particular use and nature of grouse moors, we have recognised that it is sensible to refer to the restriction in relation to grouse moors. When we are talking about East Anglian heathland, which has a variety of uses and a variety of different activities taking place on it, that is an entirely different issue. To some extent the distinction is arbitrary, but we believe that that is the right balance. Similarly, in relation to lambing, we have recognised that there would be a difficulty if a dog got into an enclosed area where lambing was taking place. We have not extended that to cover hill lambing in all circumstances beyond the general restriction on dogs in the vicinity of livestock. So there is a balance here. I should like to stick to the balance reflected in Amendment No. 118.
  I turn now to the other queries on Amendment No. 118. I can tell the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, that the plural does include the singular in this case. The prescribed steps will be set down in regulations by the Secretary of State or the Welsh Assembly. That will deal with the period of notice to which the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, referred. I shall consider whether the term "owner" is consistent with its usage elsewhere in the Bill, provided that the noble Earl does not think that the term "entitled owner" confines the proposition to Members of this House!
  Most of my remarks concern Amendment No. 45. The noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, asked whether I was correct in what. I said previously. I believe that correctly stated that owners can reach an agreement with a countryside body to relax restrictions. Owners can allow their own dogs, or permit others to allow their dogs which would otherwise be required to be on the lead, to run free on their land provided that land is not subject to other restrictions.
  As regards Amendments Nos. 46 and 49, I have already indicated that at Third Reading we shall bring forward an amendment on the issue of short leads that would apply in every context in which leads are required.
  1080
  Amendment No. 151 relates to dog fouling. I recognise that there may be problems in this area. Our understanding is that local restrictions or bylaws are already available to local authorities to deal with this problem in "honey pot" situations or in any other situation where dog fouling has become a serious menace to livestock or to humans. I believe that that matter is already covered and that local authorities already have the relevant powers. I hope therefore that my noble friend Lord Hardy will not press his amendment because I do not consider it to be necessary.
  The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, will he comment further on what steps he has in mind? Will there be consultation on those steps? Will the relevant resolution be affirmative or negative?
  Lord Whitty: My Lords, I understand that the resolution will be negative in this context. However, there will obviously be consultation on the regulations.
  Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, I shall withdraw my amendment. However, I take the point that the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, made. The amendment was tabled to try to clarify a situation. I believe that it would have done so, had it been accepted. As matters stand, I certainly expect unnecessary litigation to be put in train as the years pass. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  The Deputy Speaker (Lord Ampthill): My Lords, I have to inform the House that this is without exception the most eccentric grouping that I have encountered in over 20 years sitting on this Woolsack.
  [Amendment No. 46 not moved.]
  Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 47:
  Page 65, line 19, leave out sub-paragraph (2).
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move.
  The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, are you sure? I do not believe that you have spoken to it.
  Lord Whitty: My Lords, I believe that Amendment No. 47 is consequential on Amendment No. 118. However, I shall check that.
  The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord. He spoke to Amendment No. 47 with Amendment No. 45, or perhaps he did not. However, we shall assume that he did.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 48:
  Page 65, line 21, leave out ("apply to a person who") and insert ("entitle a person to be on any land if he").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  [Amendment No. 49 not moved.]
  Viscount Bledisloe Viscount Bledisloe moved Amendment No. 50:
  Page 65, line 23, at end insert—
  ("(2) Section 2(1) does not apply to a person who at night takes onto the land in question, or allows to enter or remain on that land, any dog.
  (3) In sub-paragraph (2), "night" means the period from one hour after sunset to one hour before sunrise on the following day.").
  The noble Viscount said: My Lords, the amendment draws together the two vexed questions of night times and dogs. Let us assume, as the House has decided, that there is to be night access and access for dogs. I suggest that it is wholly unreasonable that dogs should be allowed on land, off leads and at night. The scope for damage by them is enormous. The ability to control them is nil because one cannot see whether they are on a lead. None of the reasons advanced for being allowed to take a dog on land applies at night.
  Surely the Government can accept that it is not desirable to have dogs on land at night. Birds which are disturbed do not go back to their nests. There is more likelihood of sheep being disturbed and unable to reassemble. The reasons advanced for night access have nothing to do with taking a dog, in particular a dog off the lead. I beg to move.
  Baroness Byford: My Lords, I have put my name to the amendment. I shall not waste the time of the House. I support the amendment.
  Lord Williamson of Horton: My Lords, I, too, support Amendment No. 50. It is a little different from previous amendments. The substance of the Government's position on dogs is set out in paragraph 5 of Schedule 2; namely, that a dog can be on a lead in the vicinity of livestock but there are restrictions. We are talking about night time. It will be difficult to operate that provision at night time. I believe that it is reasonable to make the general amendment to restrict dogs off a lead during the night hours.
  I said earlier that I hoped the noble Lord would be able to reach a century before close of play. If he accepts the amendment, he will have at least half a century.
  The Duke of Montrose: My Lords, I support the amendment. Although I do not disagree with the reasons given by the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe,
  1082
  I should like to approach the issue from another angle. Disturbance to wildlife and animals is an important issue. They are more vulnerable at night. One may meet someone at night with a dog, without knowing his purpose. A dog is one of the main tools used by the rustling and poaching fraternity.
  The noble Lord, Lord Dubs—he is no longer in his seat—asked earlier what evidence we had of disturbance in the Lake District. I cannot give him any. However, I was speaking last week to a gentleman in our area who can be described as a game warden. He polices wildlife sites over an area of at least 20 to 30 square miles. He told me that in the last year he has had to speak to between 30 and 40 people who were undertaking activities which were detrimental to, or not acceptable in, our area.
  The noble Lord, Lord Judd, said that he likes to enjoy the countryside without new technology. There is much to be said for the more staid era that used to surround us. Some people would probably enjoy driving a horse and carriage down Piccadilly. They should be allowed to do so if they would like to. However, some people in the countryside now use new technology, and none more so than those who want to gain access at night for illegal purposes.
  I support the amendment because of the increasing problem of poachers and rustlers, who use a combination of new and old technology. I was given one example that shows the lengths to which people are ready to go. Landowners have to try to guard against lurcher dogs. People with lurcher dogs now hire a van to take the dogs into the country. The van can no longer be confiscated if they are accosted and accused of indulging in poaching. They get a very strong light with a red filter and drive on to the moors to look for deer. They shine the light until they catch a deer in the beam. They then let the dogs go. The deer does not see what is happening until the dogs are on it.
  That is one way in which dogs are a danger at night. Another problem is rustling sheep, which cannot be done at night without a dog. All sorts of serious problems will result from allowing people access to the countryside at night with dogs. I support the amendment.
  11.45 p.m.
  Lord Marlesford: My Lords, I, too support the amendment. The Bill is putting Labour's rural vote on thin ice. The issue of night-time access will dig a hole in that rural vote. Perhaps it has nothing to do with me if the Government wish to do that. If they persist with freedom for dogs at night on access land, major discontent with the Government could easily be generated. I am not particularly worried about that, but as a supporter of the Bill I am more worried that

  1083
  the provisions could help to bring it into discredit. I ask the Government to think again seriously about the issue.
  Lord Whitty: My Lords, I have already said that I believe that we have struck the right balance. Some of the activities that have been mentioned are clearly criminal offences in any circumstances, such as the use of dogs for poaching and rustling. Access provisions would not condone or connive at that.
  Had the amendment been more reasonable, it might have had more support, although not from me. However, it is a blanket exclusion of all dogs, whether on a lead or not, from all access land from one hour after sunset. The noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, talks about alienating rural dwellers. Under the amendment, anyone who wished to go out after half past four on a winter's night in the North of England to exercise their dog on registered common land would be banned from doing so. That would be absurd.Even those who see some merit in placing some restrictions on dogs on access land could not reasonably support such a blanket provision. People who live in the countryside would undoubtedly be upset if they were caught by the ban because they had strayed from their land to their neighbour's land with a dog on a lead. I suspect that that was not the intention of the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, but it would be the effect of the amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Williamson of Horton, misunderstood that. He referred to dogs off leads, but dogs of any sort in any context would be covered. That is not acceptable.
  I believe that we have struck the right balance. People should be able to walk their dog at night on access land. However, in any event, I believe that if noble Lords were to give the matter a moment's thought they would realise that a good proportion of the rural vote—if the noble Lord wishes to speak in electoral terms—would be quite upset were this amendment to be carried. Therefore, I hope that the noble Viscount will not press it.
  Viscount Bledisloe: My Lords, I accept that there may be rare circumstances in which this amendment goes too far—perhaps with regard to small patches of common land. However, the force of the amendment exists in relation to almost all access land, and the noble Lord has given no answer to that. In order that I may deal with the few occasions on which he has made a valid point, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment and I shall deal with those points at the next stage.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Baroness Byford Baroness Byford moved Amendment No. 51:
  Page 65, line 23, at end insert—
  1084
  (" . Section 2(1) does not apply to a person who, between the hours of sunset and sunrise, takes on to access land, or allows to enter or remain on access land, any dog.").
  The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Amendment No. 51 is grouped with Amendment No. 50. Although the noble Viscount has decided to withdraw his amendment, I am not sure that I am so happy to withdraw mine. I do not believe that the Minister responded to it completely satisfactorily. The most important issue is that of having dogs in the dark and the destruction that that causes. Also at issue is the safety of dog owners who lose their dogs at night. It is quite frightening to lose one's dog at night. I certainly wish to test the opinion of the House on this amendment.
  11.52 p.m.
  On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 51) shall be agreed to?
  Their Lordships divided: Contents, 22; Not-Contents, 50.

  Division No. 3

  CONTENTS

  Arran, E.

  Jopling, L.

  Astor of Hever, L.

  Luke, L.

  Attlee, E.

  Mancroft, L.

  Bledisloe, V.

  Marlesford, L.

  Bridgeman, V.

  Monson, L.

  Burnham, L. [Teller]

  Montrose, D.

  Byford, B.

  Northbrook, L.

  Caithness, E.

  Peel, E.

  Cavendish of Furness, L.

  Rotherwick, L.

  Glentoran, L.

  Selborne, E.

  Henley, L. [Teller]

  Williamson of Horton, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS

  Addington, L.

  Greaves, L.

  Amos, B.

  Grenfell, L.

  Ampthill, L.

  Hamwee, B.

  Andrews, B.

  Hardy of Wath, L.

  Bach, L.

  Howells of St. Davids, B

  Barker, B.

  Hoyle, L.

  Berkeley, L.

  Hughes of Woodside, L.

  Blackstone, B.

  Jay of Paddington, B. (Lord Privy Seal)

  Bragg, L.

  Brett, L.

  Judd, L.

  Burlison, L.

  McIntosh of Haringey. L. [Teller]

  Carter, L.[Teller]

  Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

  McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

  Cohen of Pimlico, B.

  Mar and Kellie, E.

  Crawley, B.

  Massey of Darwen, B.

  Davies of Coity, L.

  Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

  Desai, L.

  Morgan, L.

  Dubs, L.

  Nicol, B.

  Elder, L.

  Puttnam, L.

  Falconer of Thoroton, L.

  Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

  Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

  Sainsbury of Turville, L.

  Fyfe of Fairfield, L.

  Sawyer, L.

  Gale, B.

  Thornton, B.

  Goldsmith, L.

  Warner, L.

  Gordon of Strathblane, L.

  Whitty, L.

  Graham of Edmonton, L.

  Young of Old Scone, B.

  Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
  Midnight
  [Amendment No. 52 not moved.]
  Baroness Byford Baroness Byford moved Amendment No. 53:
  Page 65, line 23, at end insert—
  (" . Any person who fails to comply with any restriction under paragraph 4 or 5, or any other restriction on dogs imposed under Chapter II, is guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 1 on the standard scale.").
  The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I suspect I know the answer before I start but I shall still move the amendment. It introduces an offence which renders a person on summary conviction liable to a fine not exceeding level 1 on the standard scale. In my view, that offence would need to be well publicised in advance so that responsible owners would have nothing to fear.
  This evening, we have gone through the motions of putting forward these very important amendments and, unfortunately, the Government do not want to listen to what we say on the introduction of offences. Later, when this Bill is enacted, they may well wish that they had done so. That is what Amendment No. 53 seeks to do. I beg to move.
  Lord Monson: My Lords, it will not surprise your Lordships to know that I support this amendment as my name is down to it. It may well be, as the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, argued in responding to Amendment No. 42, that breaches of the restrictions on dogs do not justify an exclusion order. But that does not mean that such breaches do not deserve some modest sanction.
  An analogy might be with the riding of a bicycle on the pavement. One can well understand why cyclists may wish to do that—to avoid the dangers posed by heavy car and lorry traffic. Quite a lot of the time it may do no harm, particularly in the evening when there are very few pedestrians about, just as, for example, it may be that dogs do no harm if they are allowed to romp about in the month of May. But at other times, it does do harm. Pedestrians, particularly if they are elderly or infirm, may be bumped into or knocked over. Other more agile pedestrians have to jump out of the way. That is why the Government, quite rightly, make riding a bicycle on the pavement a criminal offence punishable by a small fine, even though not all of the time does it present any problem.
  The Minister suggested earlier that the matter could be dealt with through local by-laws. Nothing could be better calculated to confuse the public. Not everybody knows which district they are in when they go walking on a moor or mountain. It would be far better to have a sanction—such as a small fine on scale 1—that is well understood by everybody. One accepts that sanctions
  1086
  should not be extreme but to leave it to local authorities to propose by-laws seems crazy. If the Government cannot make a favourable response tonight, I hope that they will seriously consider the matter between now and the next stage.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I assure the noble Lord that I will not pursue him onto the pavements or to rely on by-laws as the main solution.
  Failure to adhere to restrictions on dogs should lead to the loss of the statutory right, with the normal consequences of trespass where appropriate. We do not wish to criminalise behaviour that does not in itself cause damage and that might be committed inadvertently
  Where dogs actively worry livestock or are allowed to roam freely on fields or enclosures where there are sheep, the Dogs (Protection of Livestock) Act 1953 provides for sanctions under criminal law. Where there is a problem in any specific area in addition, by-laws may be made if necessary to invoke the criminal law.
  When considering new criminal sanctions, we ought to bear in mind the scope of the access, which will be a modest right for the purposes of quiet recreation on foot. We expect its impact, in general, to be limited. Where people step outside the bounds of the right by, for example, allowing their dogs to roam off the lead, the impact of their behaviour would be the same under the new right as at present. Therefore the sanction should be the same. I hope that the noble Baroness will not press the amendment.
  Baroness Byford: My Lords, I thank the Minister but I am slightly disappointed. The noble Lord said that the Bill allows people quietly to enjoy the countryside. No one suggests that the majority of people will do otherwise. But throughout the afternoon and evening we have been trying to point out that in this day and age, sadly, there are people who go about not just quietly enjoying the countryside. The Bill has no teeth in enforcing sanctions against some of the things that we fear will happen. I suspect that the Ministers—who are smiling among themselves—do not believe that there will be a problem; but there will. At this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Glentoran Lord Glentoran had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 54:
  Page 65, line 23, at end insert—
  (".—( ) Any person who fails to comply with paragraph 4 or 5 and who intentionally or recklessly allows a dog to disturb game is guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 1 on the standard scale.
  ( ) In this paragraph, "game" includes hares, pheasants, partridges, grouse, heath or moor game, black game, woodcocks and snipes.").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, there has been continuing discussion or battle about the creation of offences or introducing sanctions and several debates about dogs—-some more complicated than others. The Minister has given some way, so I do not propose to move Amendment No. 54. But, after reading Hansard, I shall decide whether or not to return to the issue.
  [Amendment No. 54 not moved.]
  Clause 3 Power to extend to coastal land]:
  The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 55:
  Page 3, line 4, at end insert—
  ("( ) Before making such an order, the Secretary of State shall consult appropriate bodies.").
  The noble Earl said: My Lords, we are making some progress. When we last discussed this issue in Committee, it was at 2.45 a.m. We are now debating it two and a half hours earlier. As this is such an important clause, I had hoped that we would reach it at a more reasonable hour.
  Clause 3 is perhaps the most obnoxious clause in the Bill. It gives huge powers to the Secretary of State to make determinations and regulations and totally to ignore Parliament. The making of an order to extend access to the foreshore and to the land that borders the foreshore, including farmland, land under managed retreat, vulnerable salt marshes or the habitats of sea and marsh birds is a highly complex issue. Yet here we are allowing the Secretary of State to make an order, without any consultation specified on the face of the Bill, that could affect vast areas of land.
  I believe the fact of the Secretary of State having compulsorily to consult appropriate bodies should be on the face of the Bill. The Minister may well reply that there was a consultation period last year. That consultation period was a derisory four weeks. It was an insult to those involved in this area of land. I remind the House that there are over 240 agencies involved in retreat land. How can a sensible response be obtained in four weeks?
  It is also worth bearing in mind that the Countryside Commission for Wales has stated its view that a statutory right of public access to coastal land is untenable. But the Government have ignored that advice and ploughed ahead with the clause.
  I dislike the clause intensely but we shall deal with that in relation to Amendment No. 57. If the clause is to stay, it is essential that the fact that the Secretary of State should consult appropriate bodies is on the face of the Bill. I beg to move.
  Baroness Byford: My Lords, I support my noble friend's amendment and in doing so I shall speak also to Amendment No. 56. As the Bill is drafted, any land adjacent to the coast could have the right of access imposed upon it, including arable land, improved
  1088
  grassland or woodland. Moreover, adjacent land does not need to adjoin the coast or be contiguous with it. It could be separate parcels of land some distance away. Halsbury's Laws of England comments:
  "The expression 'adjacent' has in ordinary usage no precise and uniform meaning, but is not confined to places adjoining and includes places close to or near".
  As it stands, the Bill would accordingly allow land near to the foreshore, but not necessarily adjoining it, to be included in any statutory extension of access land on the coast. That gives too much scope for quite separate parcels of land on the coast, not adjoining the foreshore, to be made subject to the right of access. The amendment would provide a much more targeted approach.
  Baroness Young of Old Scone: My Lords, I commend the accuracy of the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, in discerning that we are debating this matter two hours earlier than in Committee. Unfortunately, when the matter was considered in Committee, I was asleep in the Library and so I did not have the opportunity to comment on it and to add the views of English Nature to those of the Countryside Commission for Wales. I was gratified to discover on reading Hansard that the Minister had made a commitment that there would be a full regulatory impact assessment followed by consultation on the possibility of including coastal land within the definition of open country. The combination of a regulatory impact assessment and consultation is welcome.
  English Nature as well as the Countryside Commission for Wales has considerable concern about the blanket inclusion of coastal land as access land. Coastal land varies in its sensitivity. Some categories of coastal land are extremely sensitive; for example, in the case of a bird colony just one person walking through the land can damage it for a number of years, whereas other types of coastal land, such as sandy beaches, where there is already considerable access, are pretty robust. I ask the Minister whether, if access to coastal land is ever to be granted as a statutory right, he will consider that future consultation should be about selective application of the right only to non-sensitive categories of coastal land.
  12.15 a.m.
  Lord Whitty: My Lords, noble Lords will be familiar with the background to the issue. The consultation paper covered it and the agency recommended that we should cover coastal land. Clearly, because of the many sensitive issues raised by noble Lords tonight, there was no time to take a firm decision one way or the other. We therefore want to retain in the Bill the ability to extend access land to coastal land.
  If we were to go down that road, many safeguards are built into the Bill. At the time of Second Reading in another place, my colleague Michael Meacher gave two important undertakings: first, that there will be a regulatory impact assessment and, secondly, that there will be a full process of consultation. The nature of that

  1089
  consultation will to some extent depend on the outcome of our experience of the operation of the right of access over mountain, moor, heath and down. But the commitment to full consultation clearly exists and I hope that that reassures the noble Earl that full consultation would be required before any part of coastal land was triggered.
  The outcome of that consultation could be the general extension of the right of access to coastal land or a more restricted definition. Alternatively, it could be something closer to what we have in the Bill for other forms of access land; namely, that coastal land in general would be access land but that certain parts of it would be excepted. However, we are not at the stage of being able to define that in the way suggested by the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, which limits it to cliff, bank, barrier and so forth. It would exclude the possibility of other coastal land being included and would restrict the definition to land which adjoins the foreshore rather than land which is adjacent to it.
  We would come to those issues were we ever to go down this road and they would be covered by both the regulatory impact statement and the full consultation. Therefore, it is built into the process that it would be wrong to try to restrict the definition as suggested by the noble Baroness's amendment at this stage of the proceedings, long before any decision in principle has been taken.
  I hope therefore that noble Lords are reasonably assured that the consultation would take place before we ever went down this road.
  Lord Marlesford: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, will he say whether I am right in thinking that although there is an undertaking from the Government to consult, no such obligation exists for subsequent governments and that the ability to extend without consultation will remain on the statute book?
  Lord Whitty: My Lords, there are general provisions for consultation in any of the definitions of "access land". Those provisions apply to this as they do to other clauses of the Bill and therefore I believe that future governments would be constrained to engage in consultation, just as much as we would.
  The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, while I welcome much of what the Minister said, perhaps I may press him further. How long does he expect a full consultation process to last? Will it be the same as last year's derisory effort of four weeks or will it be a more sensible period of time for the various bodies to take part? As I mentioned earlier, more than 240 agencies are involved in retreat land in south-east England. Will there be adequate time for them to give full replies? If the Minister could confirm that the consultation period would be in excess of six months, that would provide reassurance.
  Although there will be a consultation period, it is clear that Parliament will be no part of it. The Minister said that we would come to the question of definitions
  1090
  when the regulations were laid. We shall not. At that time we must either reject them or accept them; we shall not be allowed to enter into the kind of debate in which noble Lords are now engaged.
  To insert a clause like this is a real abuse of Parliament, with all the complications referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone. On the previous occasion when noble Lords debated this matter, the noble Baroness had the privilege of speaking to it. I hope that the noble Baroness spoke for herself and not English Nature. While the latter may agree with the views of the noble Baroness, I hope that, like other noble Lords, she gave entirely her own views.
  In the light of my observations about the Countryside Council for Wales, it appears that the two main bodies on which the Government rely are against the proposals. Before I decide what to do with the amendment, perhaps the Minister will answer the further points that I raise.
  Lord Whitty: My Lords, I cannot be precise as to how long the consultation will take, but it will certainly be far longer than last year's exercise which was simply part of the research assessment of other land carried out by the Countryside Agency. In this context we are talking about full consultation with all the appropriate bodies to whom the noble Earl refers. Therefore the noble Earl can rest assured that before any regulations appear they will have been subject to a wide degree of consultation. While I cannot put a precise time on it, the noble Earl should not look at what happened last year, which was an entirely different exercise.
  The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, not even the fifth cavalry can help the Minister. Doubtless the noble Lord has already covered the point. I do not like the situation at all. I see no harm in the amendment.
  The Minister kindly said that the Secretary of State will consult the appropriate bodies, but he does not want that to be reflected on the face of the Bill. While I am unhappy with that, I see little point in taking the opinion of the House at this stage. I hope that the Minister will reconsider this small matter. This is a minor amendment which does not alter, or detract from, the Bill. However, it would provide a great deal of reassurance to those who are concerned about this issue. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Baroness Byford Baroness Byford had given notice of her intention to move Amendment No. 56:
  Page 3, line 11, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—
  ("(b) any cliff, bank, barrier, dune, beach or flat which adjoins the foreshore.").
  The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I should like clarification from the Minister as to whether, if the government of the day decide to include coastal land, it will be done under statutory instrument or will be subject to an affirmative resolution before the House.
  Lord Whitty: My Lords, one returns to the point about which the noble Earl complained. The answer is that it would be subject to affirmative resolution.
  [Amendment No. 56 not moved.]
  Baroness Byford Baroness Byford moved Amendment No. 57:
  Leave out Clause 3.
  The noble Baroness said: My Lords, we have studied carefully the debates in Committee on Clause 3 on 3rd October at cols. 1425 to 1432. My noble friend Lord Caithness spoke to this clause. We have taken into account the fact that the basis of the Bill is the 1949 Act. Surely the implementation of that legislation as it relates to access to the countryside can be regarded only as a dismal failure. We have also considered the volume of extra work that the Bill as it stands will create for local authorities in particular.
  The Minister and his colleagues have stated that they do not believe the Bill will prove to be very expensive once the mapping has been completed. We conclude they mean that the funding will be lean, if not sometimes mean. We are convinced that if the Bill is to be a success it will provide a considerable challenge to those concerned. However, above all we are opposed to a clause which puts such vast power at the disposal of the Secretary of State. I presume that the Minister's clarification that there will be an affirmative resolution will also affect the amendment. I shall wait for that resolution.
  Eleven clauses and three schedules were added over the Summer Recess to cover AONBs. That highlights why we express our concern about this part of the Bill. Surely no one believes that the whole of our coastline with its complex problems, so well summarised by my noble friend Lord Caithness, can be catered for in three subsections covering 13 lines. The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, stated:
  "Coastal areas are vulnerable, changeable and frequently dangerous … subject to high tides, moving sands and soils, quicksand and crumbling cliff edges … The Environment Agency is currently one of only 240 agencies involved in managed retreat".—[Official Report, 3/10/00; col. 1426.]
  These powers should not be given to the Secretary of State without a great deal more discussion and detail. I beg to move.
  The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I support my noble friend on her amendment. I always thought this was a very good amendment. It stood in my name in Committee. I am absolutely delighted that my noble friend thinks it is so good that she has now taken the lead on the matter.
  My noble friend has covered many of the points that I wanted to raise. I shall not repeat what I said on Amendment No. 55 or what I said in Committee. This is a huge power that we will give to the Secretary of State. It is a process in which Parliament will have no real say. We will not be able to alter or have a detailed discussion on the regulations. Considering the amount of time we have spent on the Bill so far as concerns access land to mountain, moor, heath and down, we could spend the same amount of time and have as many concerns in relation to coastland.
  1092
  Parliament will be denied that opportunity. That is quite wrong. It is an abuse of the power of the authority of Parliament by an overwhelming executive who want to bulldoze through what they want without proper consultation. That is a disgrace. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Whitty—I quite understand he has his job to do as a Minister—underneath the shell he has to wear on this occasion, also feels that this is totally the wrong way to go about legislating on such a complicated issue.
  Lord Whitty: My Lords, this is a potentially complicated issue. That is why we have not decided either way on it but will leave it for later widespread consultation and affirmative procedure. I underline that it is the affirmative procedure.
  I do not want to go over the issues again. Many people outside will probably be amazed that coastal land is not included within the Bill, but we came across all the complexities. There are complexities.
  It is right that when legislating on the rights of access we should provide within the Bill the possibility of extending it to coastal land, subject to wide consultation and subject to the affirmative procedure. This is not an example of the Government bulldozing things through. It is quite the opposite; it is the Government taking sensible precautions and operating with caution in a field where the majority of the electorate would expect us to move rather faster.
  Baroness Byford: My Lords, I am disappointed with the Minister's response. He says that it is a sensible response to our discussions. If I was perhaps feeling a little wry, I would say that I feel that we have not had sensible answers to some of our earlier debates where the Government were not prepared to give way. It is an important issue. The clause gives the Secretary of State huge powers. I would have preferred to see the clause deleted. The Government could have come back at a later stage and introduced a Bill which included coastal land. The Government are obviously not prepared to give way tonight. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 4 [Duty to prepare maps]:
  Lord Glentoran Lord Glentoran moved Amendment No. 58:
  Page 3, line 26, at end insert—
  ("( ) A map prepared under this section shall not show any land which is—

  (a) semi-improved or improved grassland,

  (b) grassland used for making hay, silage or haylage,

  (c) grassland managed as part of an arable rotation, or

  (d) grassland used other than to provide rough grazing for livestock.").

  The noble Lord said: My Lords, we had the bulk of the debate on this amendment when we discussed Amendments Nos. 3 and 6. I understood the Minister to move some way towards us with regard to semi-improved grassland and grassland used for making hay, haylage and so on. The Government have stressed that certain types of intensely managed land will not be

  1093
  mapped. We remain unconvinced by that. However, I feel much nearer to being convinced than I was before we started our proceedings today.
  The amendment would direct the Countryside Agency and CCW not to map various types of intensely managed land. That would avoid doubt for users, owners and the Countryside Agency and CCW. It would assist the appeals process. In fact, it would be helpful, it would create clarity and should prevent considerable problems, which was the basis of our debate earlier today. It would be very welcome if the Minister could agree with me on that point and confirm that he has moved some considerable way towards our aim. I beg to move.
  12.30 a.m.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I have a long speaking note on this amendment. However, at the end of my speech on Amendment No. 3 I said that we would look again at this issue. I think it is better if I rest on that rather than respond to the amendment now.
  Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 59 and 60 not moved.]
  The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 61:
  Page 3, line 33, leave out from ("feature") to second ("to") in line 34 and insert ("where the effect is").
  The noble Earl said: My Lords, I have brought forward this amendment from Committee stage because when we debated the matter previously the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, said that she would take the matter away for consideration. I had very much hoped to see a government amendment to meet what the noble Baroness rightly surmised were the concerns of the Committee. Sadly, however, no amendment has been forthcoming.
  In Committee the noble Baroness said:
  "Any land so included would need to be clearly contiguous with a parcel of open country and be relatively minor in extent".— [Official Report, 3/10/00; co1.1448.]
  Although helpful in some respects, that reply was also wishy-washy. Perhaps I may press the noble Baroness to say what "clearly contiguous" means. What does "relatively minor in extent" mean? Those points concern many people. The Bill is designed to give access to mountain, moor, heath and down, yet in the Bill there is a blanket provision to extend it to adjacent land without any qualification as to the size, shape or nature of that land. It is an important point which requires a great deal more clarification and a tighter definition. I beg to move.
  Lord Whitty: My Lords, the intention of the amendment is to remove a sensible discretion of the Countryside Agency in its mapping process so that land which is mapped can be more easily identified both by owners and users. We expect the countryside bodies to exercise their discretion with care and not
  1094
  seek to embrace land which is not integral to the open country or which is incompatible with the right of access. If any additional land is included in maps of open country as a result of this discretion, landowners will have the right of appeal. However, we are referring here to relatively small and obvious additions or subtractions from the designation of open countryside.
  In Committee the noble Earl suggested that that could include all kinds of features such as farmland, river banks, foreshore and so forth. That misunderstands the scope of what is intended here. It enables the countryside body to extend the area of open countryside from its natural boundary only to the nearest physical feature beyond. In the vast majority of cases, that will probably mean an extension of only a few tens of metres to a stone wall, fence or perhaps to the bank of a stream. It will not allow maps to include vast areas of new farmland, foreshore or woodland, about which the noble Earl was concerned.
  The discretion is sensible and will meet the point about which a number of noble Lords have expressed concern; namely, exactly how the punter is to understand where access land begins and where it ends. The scenarios depicting an abuse of this facility envisaged by the noble Earl are misplaced.
  The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am reassured by some of the Minister's words. However, again, nothing has been put on to the face of the Bill to implement what he has said. I understand the thoughts of the noble Lord; they are exactly what I hope my thoughts would be were I sitting in his place. But that is not what the countryside body will think. Under the Bill it will have total discretion to include adjacent land of any shape, size or description—including river banks. No curtailment has been put in place.
  I hope that the countryside body will read with care what has been said by the Minister. Can he confirm one further important point; namely, that the extension of adjacent land will be to a physical feature on the ground, not a physical feature on a map? It will be no good if representatives of the countryside body sit behind their desks and say, "We'll just include that bit of land because it will round off the map nicely to make a square". This must refer to a physical feature on the ground in order to ensure that this part of the clause will work. I should be glad of the Minister's confirmation.
  Lord Whitty: My Lords, a physical feature is a physical feature. It is not a graphical feature.
  The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, that is of some help. I fear that, again, the Government will cause many problems for themselves here. I foresee a huge number of appeals being lodged by owners because nothing constructive has been added to the Bill. The provision is still far too open ended. Once more, the Minister has left himself open. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Baroness Byford Baroness Byford moved Amendment No. 62:
  Page 3, line 35, at end insert—
  ("(c) shall incorporate a minimum of one primary access point per area of open country or, where the boundary of such an area is forty miles or longer, per twenty miles of boundary, and
  (d) may incorporate secondary access points.
  ( ) In this section—

  (a) a primary access point shall provide a minimum of—

  (i) a car park for not less than six vehicles,

  (ii) toilets, and

  (iii) an information point;

  (b) a secondary access point shall provide a minimum of an information point.").

  The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this is a very important amendment. We discussed in Committee the ways in which people will find out where they can go and what they can do. We also discussed primary access points. I suspect that the Minister will tell me that my amendment is inadequate, but I should like to begin by putting forward the case for its inclusion. I accept that the drafting may not be perfect and that it may make too many demands, but I believe that this is an important point.
  In March this year the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors published a policy document on the implications of open access. The document makes a number of points, among which are the following.
  First, experience across the country suggests that the Act may increase total demand rather than simply spreading the existing demand across a wider landscape. Again, we referred to that in our earlier debates in Committee.
  Secondly, visitors to those parts of the countryside which are already open fall into three categories: those who park the car to look at a view and then perhaps take a gentle stroll. They appreciate the car parks, toilet facilities and cafes which often accompany such sites. Then there are those who walk quite long distances, but would prefer to walk on a footpath, following a signposted course. And, of course, there are the independent walkers, who bring their own sustenance, their own maps, their compasses and their ideas of where they wish to go. Thirdly, the management of access is essential and, to be effective, should consist of forward planning, provision of infrastructure, a behaviour framework of by-laws and information, and agreement on the funding and provision of effective wardening.
  At this point no one knows in what proportions the new access rights will attract visitors. It seems a fair bet, however, that an increasingly fit and comfortably-off retired population will take the opportunity to explore. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, was definitely promoting a healthy attitude for walkers in his earlier amendment. Some of them will do so from the warmth and comfort of their car and some will seek "comfort facilities". Given a map which shows the location of car parks and toilets, they will plan their itinerary to include those facilities. Others will kit
  1096
  themselves out with thermos flasks and walking sticks and drive to a suitable starting location on which they have decided.
  They will be grateful for a place to park their car safely, and they will be grateful to have art information point which contains the latest news about areas that are closed, areas that are particularly worth visiting at that time, and suggested walks of specified lengths and grades of difficulty. The remainder will require little or nothing in the way of help and may even prefer public transport over the car.
  The amendment, we understand, is not at odds with the thinking of the Countryside Agency. It merely seeks to put on the face of the Bill a minimum requirement for service levels for visitors. It is not beyond the bounds of possibility that such a requirement would be greatly to the advantage of the agency, the wildlife bodies and the occupiers of the land, who could provide facilities at which visit ors may wish to spend their money. I am reminded of the ways in which the RSPB and other organisations raise money at places such as Minsmere and the National Trust at Dunwich.
  The detail of the amendment is self-explanatory, although we feel that it will be necessary to have a minimum number of secondary points simply to provide a means of showing those who lose their way where they are and where the nearest facilities or help may be obtained. No one should lose sight of the fact that this country has amazing weather and that sometimes, with little or no warning, hikers can be caught out. Those are the reasons behind the amendment. I beg to move.
  Lord Jopling: My Lords, perhaps my noble friend can explain who is to provide the facilities enumerated under paragraphs (i), (ii) and (iii) of her amendment. It seems to me that the cost of putting down car parks for not less than six vehicles—bearing in mind that one of those vehicles, or some of them, could be buses, which are very heavy and need solid foundations—lavatories and an information point will amount to a lot of money.
  If we are to agree to the amendment, it should be made clear on the face of the Bill that the provision of these facilities will be the responsibility of public bodies. It should certainly not be the responsibility of the landowners or occupiers of the land in that area of open country. Can my noble friend explain who will be responsible for doing this? My guess would be that if the responsibility for producing these facilities was in the hands of public bodies—they always seem to spend twice as much on providing facilities as the private sector—one could quite quickly get into the realm of £100,000. These are very expensive undertakings. I see a great deal of strength in the amendment and it has a great deal of merit. But if we are to accept it, it ought to make clear whose responsibility it is to provide these facilities.
  12.45 a.m.
  Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I understand the reasons for wanting some provision on the face of the Bill at this point. Indeed, in Committee we debated an amendment about recommended access points. I have a number of difficulties with this particular amendment.
  First, I am not sure why we want to differentiate between a primary and a secondary access point. The important issue relates to how people will use the access onto the land. In summer, they may choose a popular access point at the top of a hill, but in winter they may choose one that is lower down. I can see the reason for having a recommended access point. Public information needs to be located somewhere. All along, we have advocated the importance of the public being able to see where the information is.
  As regards the second part of the amendment, I am much more nervous. I have no idea what the circumference of Dartmoor is, but I think that the number of toilet blocks that this might bring would be unacceptable to the people of Devon. There are other ways of achieving that. One of the huge benefits of local pubs is that, as well as providing the food and drinks, they provide the toilet blocks.
  I should not want to see car parks specified as a necessity at access points. Some national park authorities have led the way in getting rid of cars from sensitive areas and introducing a shuttle bus arrangement. Looking to the future, I do not think that car parks should be a major aspiration. We should consider other methods and it must be done on a local basis. Some access authorities will find car parks a necessity, but it should be up to them to think about how best to provide those facilities.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I have two kinds of problem with the amendment. First, I think that there is a misunderstanding about the role of statutory maps as opposed to non-statutory helpful maps for visitors. Statutory maps are about identifying mountain, moor, heath, down and registered common land. They are like definitive maps of rights of way. They provide the statutory data, but they are not what the public actually use. The public will use maps and guides showing the areas of open country and the main access information points and routes and any other valuable information.
  Government Amendment No. 104, to which I have referred, places a duty on countryside bodies to take action to ensure that the public are informed about means of access, as well as promoting information about people's access rights and responsibilities more generally. It is here that the information should be provided rather than on statutory maps.
  I know that the Countryside Agency has every intention of making available such non-statutory information. It has produced a paper on mapping for the National Countryside Access Forum. It has made it clear that access information points and means of access should be shown when the provisional and conclusive maps are issued. That is part of its policy and its approach.
  1098
  In addition, I take account of what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, and the noble Baroness, Lady Miller. If we put the countryside bodies under an obligation to map statutory access points, would we not need arrangements for consultation, objection or appeal? If we create so-called "primary and secondary access points", what does that mean? Do we really want to require them to show where toilets and car parks must be provided for every area of open country? Moreover, what is an area? Are they discrete areas? Are they areas under single ownership? Indeed, as the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, said, we could have half the country covered with toilet blocks and car parks. There are practical reasons, as well as the main reason to which I referred, why these amendments would not be suitable.
  Baroness Byford: My Lords, I thank other noble Lords who have intervened. I should apologise to my noble friend for not saying this directly in my introduction because it would have helped, but I had assumed that the public purse would pay for this either through the Countryside Agency or through another body. I do not see this as being the responsibility of an individual; indeed, that would be totally unreasonable.
  As regards the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, I can tell her that I had a problem with trying to work out how many sites there would be and where they would be. That is why I said in my introduction that I appreciated the fact that the amendment was not adequate in that respect. I may be able to explore the issue at greater length when we deal with government Amendment No. 104. I was trying to illustrate the great need that there is for people to know where to go and how to find the kind of information that they want.
  The noble Baroness also asked about the difference between the main primary access points and the secondary access points. The primary access point would provide greater facilities, whereas the secondary access point would have very minimal facilities and would not have the bigger complex that I imagine the primary ones will need to produce.
  The Minister referred me to Amendment No. 104 in relation to the question of how many points we have, where they are and how they operate. I shall, indeed, return to the issue when we reach that stage. But somewhere in this Bill we need to cover access points to enable people to find the kind of information that they need. I believe that that is generally agreed around the Chamber. At present, unless I have misunderstood the position, I do not see Amendment No. 104 as fulfilling that role: it sets out what should be provided by the code of conduct and other information. I do not believe that it makes provision for setting up and establishing the access points. That is the purpose of my amendment. I may be wrong, but obviously the hour is late. Perhaps we can clarify the position between now and Third Reading. I have not noticed any mention either in Amendment No. 104 or in the Bill as it stands of a duty to provide access points from which people can obtain information. If the Minister wishes to correct me, I shall be happy to step back on

  1099
  the issue. But if not, perhaps we can return to the matter on Third Reading. I shall give the Minister time to think about it. I have not found any provision in the Bill that covers what I am seeking to achieve.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I did not cover that point because the amendment is about the mapping of access points. Indeed, it is about putting them on a statutory map. In so far as this is about the provision of access points, I said that we are of course in favour of such points and that we shall take whatever steps are necessary—I shall deal with that when we come to the next amendment—to ensure that there are access points. However, we do not believe that this amendment, which requires them to be provided for each area of open land, is the appropriate way to approach the matter.
  Baroness Byford: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that response. I have not actually referred to mapping in this amendment, apart from mentioning the area. That is why I was slightly thrown when the Minister—
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I should not be doing this, but I shall respond very quickly. Such amendments are placed in a part of the Bill which specifies what the statutory maps contain. That is why this is an amendment about mapping.
  Baroness Byford: My Lords, I fear that we are indulging in exchanges across the Chamber in a way that we should not on Report. However, this is an important point. I hope that we shall discuss it more fully on another occasion. My biggest problem consisted of identifying "an area". I accept that my definition is not correct. However, at this stage I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 5 [Publication of draft maps]:
  [Amendment No. 63 not moved.]
  Schedule 3 [Delegation of appellate functions]:
  Baroness Byford Baroness Byford moved Amendment No. 64:
  Page 67, line 31, leave out ("require") and insert ("allow").
  The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the amendment seeks to substitute the word "allow" for "require". I commend the amendment to the House. I beg to move.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, Amendment No. 64 would seem to have the effect that, if the appointment of a person to determine appeals was revoked, no person would be allowed to make fresh representations once another person was appointed. The Bill provides that no one should be required to make fresh representations but they may do so if they wish. The revocation of an appointment is rare. But if it does occur it must be right for it to be possible for the newly appointed person to hear afresh from a witness. The amendment would prevent that. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, will not press it.
  Baroness Byford: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 10 [Review of maps]:
  Lord Rotherwick Lord Rotherwick moved Amendment No. 65:
  Page 6, line 31, leave out ("ten years") and insert ("twelve months").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 65, I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 67. I have previously declared an interest and I shall not repeat it now.
  In Committee we talked a little about reviewing maps in conclusive form. I note that we did so at about six o'clock in the morning. At least we are discussing the matter a few hours earlier this morning.
  The aim of these amendments is to ensure that information and guidance that could change during a year is disseminated to all those wishing to he informed through an up-to-date map, possibly a digitised mapping system that is reviewed annually. I have taken the example from the aviation world where maps are reviewed annually. I am advised that it is also the case with naval maps. The aviation maps referred to are topographic base digitised and maintained to CAA specification by the Ordnance Survey. An annual review of any changes may necessitate a new map for the next year to incorporate those changes. Thus aviators can be sure to be navigating in a safe and correct way. Like most people, from time to time I have difficulty reading maps and rely deeply on the new maps published each year. Would not the route the CAA takes be a sensible route for the Countryside Agency to take?
  Aviation maps not only show all the necessary aviation features including danger areas, prohibited areas and restricted areas, but also a considerable amount of useful information such as how to communicate with the relevant authorities for aerodromes, danger zones, restricted zones etc.; all information useful to planning a flight in or around such areas or to helping one during a flight especially if a problem occurs. Like most aviators I have on occasion been most thankful for that information.
  I believe that the best way to disseminate information is using a combination of tools such as maps, websites, fax polling and recorded telephone messages. I shall speak to Amendment No. 138 which deals with other ways of disseminating information and guidance other than by maps. However, maps are an important way to disseminate up-to-date information. I believe that a map that is not updated frequently would probably become obsolete in as little as three to four years and definitely after 10 years. Those accessing the countryside for enjoyment should have up-to-date information not only to enable them to enjoy their time in the countryside to the fullest but also to enable them to conduct themselves properly according to the guidelines and regulations.
  If the information they require is difficult to obtain or out of date, they may well put themselves in a hazardous situation. For example, a redundant mineshaft may become a hazard; or—perish the thought—another Chernobyl might occur. Mapping information should be used to disseminate those hazards in an appropriately short time. Out-of-date maps can also cause conflict between those accessing the land and wardens, land managers and owners. For instance, a diversion or changes may have occurred. The information must be correct with updates being incorporated within a year of their implementation. Unnecessary hazards or conflicting situations should be prevented if possible.
  What changes can occur in a year? There is the possibility of change to registered land and open country. I believe that land management practices, diversifications and development changes should be reviewed annually. Amendments Nos. 3 and 58 relate to silage and haylage. Agricultural land may have cultivation changes with improved pastures. Amendment No. 118 refers to the exclusion of dogs on grouse moors. Amendment No. 23 provides for exclusion orders which may need to be implemented. I am sure that there many other examples of changes in the countryside which need to be notified within one year.
  It is to be hoped that maps will contain information on more frequent changes, such as those to routes, names of access authorities, codes of practice, by-laws, public safety notes, wildlife conservation notes and other such information. If aviators and sailors can be treated to such up-to-date information, should not those accessing the countryside, and those involved in the countryside, also be treated in the same way? I beg to move.
  1 a.m.
  Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I support my noble friend's amendment. Mapping is a continuous process. Once the mapping process starts when the Bill becomes an Act, it must be a continuous, five or six day a week process. I know something of the marines, having been a commissioner for the Irish lighthouse service for some 16 years. It is compulsory for maritime charts to be updated on a continuous basis. With regard to shore lights, navigation aids and so on, notices to mariners are issued on a daily basis around the coast keeping mariners up to date with changes. It is compulsory for professional mariners and marine authorities continually to update and replace charts.
  Once this mapping process begins—it is the basis of the successful implementation of the Bill—it must be continuous with updating taking place daily or at regular intervals. I suspect that my noble friend is more nearly right than the Minister. New charts and new maps must be reissued and made available so that all users of the countryside have the most up-to-date information.
  Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, Clause 10 requires the countryside bodies to conduct a review of their maps of open country and registered common land no more than 10 years after they were issued or last reviewed. However, there are two factors that may cause the bodies to conduct a review sooner or later than that.
  First, the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales may use their powers under subsection (3) to require reviews either more or less frequently than every 10 years. Secondly, the countryside body need not wait 10 years, or whatever duration is specified in regulations, before embarking on a review. It may conduct a review sooner if it thinks that there would be benefit in doing so.
  Amendments Nos. 65 and 67 would require the first and subsequent reviews to take place every year. That would amount to a requirement for an almost continuous review. That would give rise to a highly unsatisfactory situation, with the countryside bodies engaged in a constant cycle of consultation and appeals on maps. The maps would convey no certainty for the user or landowner, because they would be out of date almost as soon as they were published. Given all the consultation and appeals, annual reviews of the maps would be very costly.
  The Bill affords the countryside bodies discretion to review maps more frequently if they see fit, subject to reserve powers for the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales to intervene to set a different minimum period for reviews. The amendments would cause both users and landowners to be constantly considering with the countryside bodies the status of land included, or not included, in maps of open country.
  There has been a fundamental misunderstanding in many of our debates on maps. We fully expect the countryside bodies to provide up-to-date information of the kind envisaged by the noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick, but that is not the purpose of the statutory maps. We have referred to that several times. The maps will show areas of land. They will not provide the detail and up-to-date information that the noble Lord expects and that the Government are providing for through the responsibilities given to the countryside bodies. I therefore hope that the noble Lord will understand that we cannot support the amendments.
  Lord Rotherwick: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her explanation, but I am disappointed. I view the maps as a means of giving the state of play at that time. If there is no device to enable people to determine the state of play, there will be more conflicts and difficulties.
  Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I stress that up-to-date information must be available, but the maps are not the means of doing so.
  Lord Rotherwick: My Lords, I am sorry that the Minister misunderstood me. My amendments were based on how the aviation world works, where half-mil

  1103
  maps are used very successfully for that purpose. It is easier to put information on the much larger scale maps that one would tend to use when going into the countryside. I was hoping that maps could be used in that way.
  Amendments Nos. 66 and 68 relate to the same issue. I shall not press this amendment, but it is important that information should be disseminated to the public, including maps showing the up-to-date situation. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Luke Lord Luke moved Amendment No. 66:
  Page 6, line 31, leave out ("ten") and insert ("five").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 66, I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 68. To a certain extent, Amendment No. 66 follows the previous two amendments. I have taken considerable note of what my noble friend Lord Rotherwick and the Minister said. This matter was raised in Committee and I have read what the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said on that occasion.
  However, I believe the fact that the Bill is very complicated suggests that 10 years is too long. If the first tranche of maps is completed and then nothing is reviewed for 10 years, that predicates the possibility that everything will be right the first time. I suggest that it is quite likely that everything will not be right the first time.
  Whereas, for various reasons, one year may be too short, I suggest that five years would be a good compromise. That is what Amendment No. 66 seeks for the first review and what Amendment No. 68 seeks for subsequent reviews. I believe that it is essential that the period should be reduced to five years for the first review, and I should like to hear what the Minister says about that. I beg to move.
  Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Luke, said, Amendments Nos. 66 and 68 propose that the reviews of maps proposed under Clause 10 should take place every five years rather than every 10.
  We have given the matter careful consideration but, on balance, believe that 10 years is appropriate. We wish to promote a period of stability after the right comes into effect and we do not envisage that so many changes in land use will occur as to warrant a review within live years. We are confident that the very careful work which will be put into the initial set of maps will enable them to provide for a good number of years a solid foundation for the new right of access.
  However, should it be necessary, the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales will be able to change the period for reviews and make them more frequent. Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord will feel that it is not necessary to press the amendment.
  Lord Luke: My Lords, I am not altogether happy with what the Minister said. However, in view of the
  1104
  lateness of the hour, we shall consider the matter and possibly return with it at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 67 to 69 not moved]
  Lord Glentoran Lord Glentoran moved Amendment. No. 70:
  After Clause 10, insert the following new clause—

  ACCESS LAND INFORMATION MAPS
  (" .—(1) The appropriate countryside body shall prepare "access land information maps" and shall issue these at the same time as any maps issued in draft form under section 5.
  (2) The access information maps shall, in relation to any area of land mapped under section 4—

  (a) show the possible location of any means of access to the land within the meaning of section 32 of this Act,

  (b) show the possible location of any notices which might be provided under section 19,

  (c) show whether areas of land mapped under section 4 are, or are not, accessible from any highway and distinguish between such areas where both occur on the same map,

  (d) in relation to any registered common land which is included on the map prepared under section 4, indicate whether any such land is—

  (i) common land within the meaning of section 193(1) of the Law of Property Act 1925;

  (ii) common land within the meaning of section 193(2) of the Law of Property Act 1925; or

  (iii) any other registered common land,

  and where common land of more than one type occurs on the same map, the access information map shall distinguish between them,

  (e) show any areas of land which are, in the view of the appropriate countryside body, excepted land within the meaning of Schedule 1,

  (f) show any areas of land which may, in the view of the appropriate countryside body, need to be subject to directions under section 23(1)(b) for the purpose of avoiding danger to the public.").

  The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 70 concerns a duty to prepare maps showing additional information alongside draft maps of access land. The noble Baroness appeared to highlight that a misunderstanding about the maps exists between the two sides of the House. If I understood her correctly, I am very disappointed. If the maps are simply to be plain, statutory ordnance survey maps which show nothing more or less than areas of ground which are access land, I believe that that is a terrible waste of effort.
  I believe, and it would appear that the Government have resisted this so far, that including additional information on the draft maps could be helpful to all interests in assessing the implications of the designation of access land. The implications could include the need to provide new access points and notices to indicate the boundary of access land or to provide information to the public of closures and so on; to establish new rights of way to link parcels of access land to the highway network; to provide warden services or to ensure clarity between common land covered by the Act and other common land.
  A suggested solution is for the Countryside Agency and the Countryside Council for Wales to provide maps alongside the draft maps of access land that show all that information. That will enable the implications of the new right of access to be considered at as early a stage in the process as possible. The maps will be immensely useful to all interests in deciding what implications follow from the provision of access.
  I go further. If that work is done—if that form of mapping is put together—it will be the most superb creation that those of us who enjoy the countryside and wander into the wildernesses, such as they are in this country, could have—modern up-to-date maps using the latest techniques, showing all the needs a walker or long-distance hiker requires. To fail to do that on the back of this Bill and the right that is being given to the people of this country would be a serious disappointment. I beg to move.
  1.15 a.m.
  Lord Rotherwick: My Lords, I shall bring forward Amendment No. 138 later on this subject. So I will not say too much at this time. I agree with my noble friend that if the maps do not show a range of additional information there will be a good opportunity lost. In my experience, when one has civil aviation maps enabling a pilot to enter an aeroplane with just a map giving sufficient information for all his flights, I cannot see why it cannot occur on the land.
  Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I feel that, from these Benches, we are not clear about what this amendment is trying to achieve. As I read the Bill, there is the process we discussed at length in Committee; that is, the statutory mapping process, which is necessary so that it is clear what land is in and what land is out. After that in my view the important point is that it must be done as soon as possible. The Ordnance Survey, on which the public rely to use land, uses the information that the countryside bodies have gathered to produce in its explorer and leisure ranges as comprehensive an explanation as possible of access land—the way one arrives at such land and the facilities around it. The Ordnance Survey maps should be very full and comprehensive. It is that interface between the Countryside Agency process—which is what the Bill sets out—and how Ordnance Survey take on that work that is very important.
  It is crucial that the public have that full information. If the Minister has the information as to how that interface will happen at this stage that is wonderful. If not, it is something about which we shall be anxious to hear—the Government's expectations on the agency passing on information to Ordnance Survey—at the next stage of the Bill.
  Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I am getting a little worried about the noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick, who still seems determined to use the
  1106
  statutory maps almost as a means of making his aviation safer. I hope that between us, we can manage to convince him that it would not be safe.
  Lord Rotherwick: My Lords, I think that the Minister understands me. I already have my aviation map which makes my flying safe. I was hoping the same process could be used to make perambulating on the ground safe as well.
  Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I am sure that I can reassure the noble Lord. For example, I have known the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, for many years as a Lancashire county councillor and he does not need a map that will take him up and down above the ground. It is not quite the same sort of map that we are looking for.
  We have tabled an amendment which will be debated later which will place a duty on the countryside bodies to ensure that the public are informed of means of access and their rights and obligations under Part I.
  It will, of course, be important to ensure that, as the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, said, users have information about which land is subject to the right and how to get onto it. We said before that we expect such information, as the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, said, will be shown on Ordnance Survey maps, just as such information is already shown on maps of access land in the Peak District.
  These amendments would require the countryside bodies to make judgments concerning the possible positioning of means of access and notices and whether the land will need to be subject to a direction because there is a danger to the public.
  Those issues do not need to be assessed at the early stage when draft maps of open country are issued. Means of access and notices are not, in any event, matters for the countryside bodies to address. Those responsibilities rest instead with the access authority.
  The new duty on the countryside bodies will secure much, if not all, of the information which this amendment seeks. We do not think that the countryside bodies should have to prepare additional maps to show that information. It can be presented better in other ways or on Ordnance Survey maps. We want that right of access to be seen in relation to all the other access opportunities available to the public. That will be better achieved by the new information duty that we are proposing, rather than a requirement to produce discrete access maps.
  However, this amendment would be unduly prescriptive. It would require the countryside bodies to issue maps containing data not in their control, or at an inappropriately early stage in the development of maps of open country. It would require them to draw up detailed maps of excepted land which will be obvious to all. It would require them to focus unreasonably on land from which the public should be excluded owing to dangers, when other types of exclusion should receive similar attention. The new information duty on the countryside bodies will ensure

  1107
  that the best elements of this amendment can be achieved on a much more flexible and up-to-date basis. For that reason, I ask the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, not to press the amendment.
  Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I heard what the Minister said and I listened very carefully to her. I preface my remarks by saying that I believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, has got it absolutely right. She enunciated almost what I was trying to say, and she did so rather more clearly. The Minister did not address the question which the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, posed in relation to the interface between the statutory map, which will apparently only show access land, and the Ordnance Survey maps. The penny has only just dropped tonight that there will be two separate processes. Ordnance Survey will go on in its usual brilliant way and alongside it will be a bureaucratic map put together by a whole lot of different people at some expense. If I go on the moors or mountains, will I need two maps—one that tells me where I can walk and another that helps me to find the way?
  Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I can agree with the noble Lord that the noble Baroness,
  1108
  Lady Miller, got it absolutely right. The original, statutory map merely identifies the land to which the Bill refers and access to which would be available—all other things being equal. Then there would be a process involving the access authority taking a lead role to identify the detail. It is not a case of two different maps but an Ordnance Survey map to which additional information can be added. The two maps would run in parallel in the way that the noble Lord fears were his amendment to be accepted.
  Lord Glentoran: My Lords, on that happy note, I thank the noble Baroness for her patience and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I beg to move that consideration on Report be now adjourned.
  Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
  House adjourned at twenty-seven minutes past one o'clock.

  Government Cars
  Government Cars
  Common Agricultural Policy
  Common Agricultural Policy
  United Kingdom Register of Organic Food Standards
  United Kingdom Register of Organic Food Standards
  Army Base Repair Organisation, Sennybridge: Turn-Round Times
  Army Base Repair Organisation, Sennybridge: Turn-Round Times
  Mr Graham Gaskin
  Mr Graham Gaskin
  Haemophilia
  Haemophilia
  Biopsy Waiting Times
  Biopsy Waiting Times
  Incontinence Products and VAT
  Incontinence Products and VAT
  Children in Poverty
  Children in Poverty
  Petrol and Diesel Fuel Duties
  Petrol and Diesel Fuel Duties
  House of Lords Management and Services
  House of Lords Management and Services
  Student Mobility
  Student Mobility
  Secondary Teachers
  Secondary Teachers
  Students Qualifying as Teachers: Numbers
  Students Qualifying as Teachers: Numbers
  Learning and Skills Act: Land Consents
  Learning and Skills Act: Land Consents
  Omagh Bombing: "Panorama" Programme Court Challenge
  Omagh Bombing: "Panorama" Programme Court Challenge
  Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act: Ethical Review Process
  Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act: Ethical Review Process
  Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act: Investigations Scrutiny
  Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act: Investigations Scrutiny
  Investigatory Powers Tribunal
  Investigatory Powers Tribunal
  Justice and Home Affairs Council
  Justice and Home Affairs Council