Sitting of 2 November 2000

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

  CITY OF LONDON (WARD ELECTIONS) BILL
  Ordered,
  That the promoters of the City of London (Ward Elections) Bill shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with it, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that notice of their intention to do so is lodged in the Private Bill Office not later than the day before the close of the present Session and that all fees due up to that date have been paid;
  That on the fifth sitting day in the next Session the Bill shall be presented to the House by deposit in the Private Bill Office;
  That a declaration signed by the agent shall be annexed to the Bill, stating that it is the same in every respect as the Bill presented in this House in the present Session;
  That on the next sitting day following presentation, the Clerk in the Private Bill Office shall lay the Bill on the Table of the House;
  That in the next Session the Bill shall be deemed to have passed through every stage through which it has passed in the present session, and shall be recorded in the Journal of the House as having passed those stages;
  That no further fees shall be charged to such stages.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Oral Answers to Questions
  TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  TRADE AND INDUSTRY

    Postal Services
    Mr. Tony Baldry: How many responses he has received to the draft statutory, social and environmental guidance to the Postal Services Commission. [133887]
    The Minister for Competitiveness (Mr. Alan Johnson): Two.
    Mr. Baldry: If the Government intend to place extra responsibilities on the Post Office, those obligations will cost money. How does the Minister think that sub-post offices and rural post offices will make up the third of their income, which they stand to lose in a couple of years? On Report and Third Reading of the Postal Services Bill, the Government said that they might
    818
    introduce a scheme to help post offices in difficulty. Will any money be paid out under that scheme, or was that just a sop to get the Bill through the other place?
    Mr. Johnson: The scheme was not mentioned when we took the Postal Services Bill through the other place. We announced in the comprehensive spending review that we would put £270 million into the initiatives to implement the recommendations in the performance and innovation unit report. We also said that we were prepared to add substantial amounts to that sum because much of it depends on whether the pilots for various initiatives such as Government general practitioners work. If they do so, we can apply them across the country. Money is available, as has been announced clearly in the comprehensive spending review.
    Mr. Norman Baker: Will the Minister ask the Postal Services Commission to examine the terms offered by the Post Office to potential franchisees? Is he aware that in my constituency three post offices have closed and have not been reopened simply because the terms are so unattractive? One of them is the second main post office in the town of Lewes. Similar closures have been made across the country. Those terms possibly represent a greater threat to our post offices than that posed by automated credit transfers.
    Mr. Johnson: The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. One of the PIU recommendations was that the Government should place an obligation on the Post Office to stop preventable closures. The Post Office does its best at the moment, but it makes the point that that is a purely voluntary action. The report says that the Government should insist that that course is followed as a matter of policy. As part of that, we will ask the Post Office to consider precisely the point that the hon. Gentleman raises—the terms and conditions with which new sub-postmasters have to comply when taking over an office. I hope that the letter that puts the obligation on the Post Office to carry out the PIU recommendation will be available in the House of Commons Library in the next couple of weeks.
    Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory: How can the Government talk about social guidance to the Post Office when the Government and the Department of Trade and Industry in particular are vandalising the Post Office network by announcing the end of the cash payment of benefits at post offices? Is the Minister aware of the figures from the Post Office that show that the rate of closure of post offices since the election is running at one a day, and that the rate has been accelerating in recent months? Is he aware of the economic and social damage being caused to those small businesses and their customers in urban areas as well as rural districts throughout the country? When will the Government stop talking about social responsibility and inclusiveness and giving us all that waffle when in practice they are doing the direct opposite by closing the vital network of businesses and post offices on which so many people rely?
    Mr. Johnson: That was a frivolous question on a very important subject. I welcome the right hon. Gentleman to his turn to be shadow spokesman on trade and industry for the next few months. Let me explain to him that the

    819
    closure of post offices is important to all Members of the House. Some 25 per cent. of the network has disappeared in the past 20 years. In 1980 the previous Government—I do not criticise them for it—introduced payment of benefits through ACT for the first time. There was a record number of closures five years later. The Conservative Government extended ACT in 1990. There were record closures—479—again in 1992.
    It will be interesting to hear whether the Opposition plan to reverse the move to ACT. We are finally grasping the nettle and are computerising the whole of the network—to date we have computerised 13,000 post offices. The Conservative Government computerised none. The Horizon programme will be finished by February next year and we will build on that to introduce network banking, e-commerce and ideas such as Government general practitioners so as to give post offices a stable and secure future. That future is supported by the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters, the Women's Institute and all the societies representing the countryside, including the Countryside Agency. [HoN. MEMBERS: "This is a speech."] It is a speech in response to a speech. The only organisation that has criticised that future is the Opposition Front-Bench.
    Mr. John M. Taylor rose—
    Mr. Johnson: The hon. Gentleman will get his chance in a minute.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Perhaps I can be diplomatic by saying that it was a very good question and a very good answer, but both of them should have been shorter.
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I wish it had been an answer to the question I actually put. We do not need to be told how important the issue is. The Minister tried to be patronising to me and—by implication—to all the sub-postmasters in the country, whose livelihoods are at stake because of this issue. He then tried to claim that the closure programme was larger under the Conservatives. I remind him that, according to the Government's own figures—I hope that he will not try to deny them—the rate of closure has tripled; it has gone up threefold if we compare the last year of our Administration with this year. The closure rate has accelerated—it is running at more than one a day—and all the Government do is dither. It was we who introduced the idea of wiring up the post offices and the Labour Government who abolished—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I am certainly not going to allow a speech—[Interruption.] Will the Minister answer the question? [Interruption.] The question was far too long. I would say the same to Back Benchers—
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: My contribution was not as long as the Minister's.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I made the ruling; it must be shorter. A short reply would be appreciated.
    Mr. Johnson: In rural areas, the number of closures at the half-year stage is down by 10 per cent. There is a worrying increase in urban areas, which we are addressing. The provisions of the PIU report will be brought in exactly as the report recommended.
    820
    In 1985, there was a record number of 395 closures; it was exceeded in March 1992, when there were 478. That figure has never even been matched under the Labour Government.

    Euro
    Mr. Michael Fallon: If he will estimate the cost to small retailers of changing over to the euro. [133888]
    The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Stephen Byers): The cost to retailers will depend upon the detailed approach that they take to any changeover.
    Mr. Fallon: How much has been allocated for conversion preparations in the DTI's own three-year spending plans? When exactly should small retailers begin to prepare?
    Mr. Byers: The hon. Gentleman is right to raise the importance of retailers preparing for any changeover; that will allow the British people to make a genuine choice as to whether they want to join a single European currency. Only the Labour party offers the people that choice; the Conservatives would not give the British people that choice.
    As for costs, that depends on how retailers decide to approach the matter. In the changeover plan, we laid down the precise way in which they can prepare; it will be for retailers themselves to take that decision.
    Mr. David Kidney: What benefits does my right hon. Friend anticipate would come from trading in a common currency rather than in different currencies? Does he estimate that those benefits would outweigh the costs of conversion?
    Mr. Byers: The Government have made it clear that, in principle, we would join a successful single currency for three principal reasons: the benefits that would come from improved trade; the transparency of costs; and the currency stability that would clearly result from being part of a single currency. Those are the reasons why we are keeping the option open; why we have a policy of prepare and decide; and why we are prepared to give the people of this country a genuine choice—[Interruption.] I agree that the Liberal Democrats hold the same position. However, the Conservatives do not; they want to deny choice to the British people—the Conservatives are not prepared to hold effective discussions about the realities.
    Mr. Alan Duncan: The cost of changing over to the euro will not be merely a matter of amending invoices and tills. If the exchange rate is fixed, other economic variables—such as labour costs, taxation and prices—will have to take the strain, as the economies of other countries behave differently. Small businesses will feel that strain much more than big ones. What estimate has the DTI made of the extent to which, for instance, an inappropriate interest rate will hurt small retailers or of how much more volatile other economic variables will turn out to be if the European exchange rate

    821
    is fixed? How does that climate of much higher risk for small businesses fit in with the Chancellor's five fatuous tests?
    Mr. Byers: The economic conditions must be right before we would recommend to the British people joining a single currency, and we have said very clearly that we will test those five economic conditions early in the next Parliament. The hon. Gentleman is right to raise the important issue of those important conditions. Unfortunately, he failed to raise the constitutional issues, which I know concern him greatly, which is why he actually said during "Any Questions" on 20 October, "I have no intention whatsoever of voting in favour of the euro". [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear"]. I see that the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory), who leads from the Conservative Front Bench on trade and industry matters—I welcome him to his new position—shares that view: he would not vote in favour. I wonder how on earth that can be reconciled with the official policy of the Conservative party?
    Conservative Members know that, for principled reasons, they would never support joining a single currency. If that is the principle, and if there are constitutional reasons, why is it not ruled out for ever, and why is there this fudge in the Conservative party to rule it out for one Parliament? Increasingly, people are seeing through the cracks in Tory policy regarding the single currency.

    Shipbuilding
    Dr. Norman A. Godman: How many people are employed in the United Kingdom's shipbuilding and ship repairing industry; and what was the comparable figure in (a) 1980 and (b) 1990. [133889]
    The Minister for Competitiveness (Mr. Alan Johnson): The information is not available for the dates requested but it is available for 1981, 1991 and 1998. The data are available only for Great Britain, not the United Kingdom.
    In September 1998, the latest year for which data are available, 39,800 people were employed in the building and repairing of ships and boats. In September 1981, 120,800 people were employed in shipbuilding and repairing and the comparable figure for September 1991 was 47,000.
    Dr. Godman: I know that the Government are doing their best to stop the dreadful decline in shipbuilding jobs, but might I point out to my hon. Friend that the premature withdrawal of the European Union's operating aid will badly harm the industry and those employed in it? I hope that he will agree to meet a delegation of Members from shipbuilding constituencies to discuss that before the Industry Council meets on 4 December. The aid is not even a pittance when compared with the money given by Brussels to the farming industry, and other European Union member states want to retain the aid.
    Mr. Johnson: My hon. Friend raises an important point. We have discussed the matter at the Shipbuilding Forum. It is worth mentioning that, for the first time
    822
    in the history of this maritime nation, the present Government have created a forum for the industry, the unions and Government to sit around the same table.
    It is important to remember that it was the industry itself that agreed to the abolition of the shipbuilding intervention fund by the end of the year 2000, for the simple reason that that fund is disappearing across Europe. Our competition problems are mainly with Korea, where there is a 30 to 40 per cent. difference in prices. The 9 per cent. grants available under SIF are viewed as part of the problem rather than part of the solution.
    I understand the concerns that my hon. Friend has expressed and I should be pleased to meet a delegation of Members as he suggests.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: I appreciate that the figures refer only to Great Britain, but we welcome the development of recent weeks, which has given some hope to shipbuilding throughout the United Kingdom. What discussions are going on with the Department for Education and Employment to ensure that we have the trained personnel who can continue the traditions of British shipbuilding?
    Mr. Johnson: That is an important point. The problems in the shipbuilding industry stem from many issues, but productivity is central; and the skills of the work force, and ensuring that those skills are kept up to date with new technologies, are crucial. That is why we gave a £2.8 million grant to a link research project, whereby we work in line with the DFEE, whose representatives attend the Shipbuilding Forum that we have set up. We are working with that Department and others to ensure that the industry has the skilled personnel that it needs to face the challenges of the 21st century.

    Clothing and Textiles Strategy
    Mr. Andrew Reed: What progress he has made on the implementation of the clothing and textiles strategy. [133890]
    The Minister for Trade (Mr. Richard Caborn): There is a general consensus that the Government have made much progress on the implementation of those elements of the strategy picked up in the 12-point plan that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment, my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Ms Hodge), announced to coincide with the launch of the working party's full strategy document. About 50 recommendations are in the report and the rest are being dealt with by a special unit in the DTI.
    Mr. Reed: I thank my right hon. Friend for that response and—before I start my moan—I wish to say that it is a welcome document and one for which we have waited 20 years. However, will he recognise the frustration and anger felt by textile workers—particularly those in Shepshed in my constituency where nearly 800 jobs were lost over the summer—at the fact that only £15 million is attached to the strategy when the 6,000 farmers in Leicestershire are entitled to £30 million a year from the set-aside programme to sit on their hands doing nothing? Will he take the message that we cannot wait any longer for the implementation of the strategy

    823
    throughout the country—and especially in the east midlands—and that extra resources are required to make things happen on the ground?
    Mr. Caborn: I understand the frustration that my hon. Friend feels. The problem is managing change, and 20 years ago we should have set in train a strategy to manage change in the industry so that it could move up the value-added chain to where the worthwhile jobs and the real wealth creation are. The Government want to assist the industry and we have sat down with it to evaluate its problems. We are addressing the issues of improving skills and developing the supply chain to help to ensure that this country exports much more effectively. Unfortunately, that does not happen overnight, but we will work with the industry to manage the change effectively. However, I understand my hon. Friend's frustration.
    Mr. Archy Kirkwood: Does the Minister accept that any successful textile strategy for the future depends on stable global export markets? Does he acknowledge that the cashmere industry in south-east Scotland still faces a threat of penal United States tariff sanctions in the margins of the on-going banana war? Will his Department and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office continue—I acknowledge the good work that Ministers have done so far—their efforts to try to bring an early end to the constant uncertainty and threat that hangs over the cashmere industry in Scotland?
    Mr. Caborn: I congratulate the industry to which the hon. Gentleman refers. It has increased its sales to the United States from £18 million to £21 million, and that is why it is important to the people who work in the industry that the list on the carousel is not used. In fact, the carousel is a symptom and not a cause. The cause of the problem is the banana war and we are trying to resolve it by exerting strong pressure on the European Commission and the Americans to encourage them to come to an agreement. We would then dispense with the whole carousel. The hon. Gentleman knows that, when cashmere was listed on the carousel, we made strong representations, and that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made them directly. To some extent we were successful, but the listing is a symptom. We must deal with the cause of the problem.
    Kali Mountford: In my constituency those mill owners who have asked the DTI for help have been very impressed with the quality and speed with which they have received it. Unfortunately, the vast majority of mill owners tell me that that they have never received help from any Government and that they do not believe that any Government are interested in them. How will my right hon. Friend make sure that the textile strategy is understood by mill owners and that they use the strategy that is available to them to help them to export their goods and to ensure that the industry grows?
    Mr. Caborn: My hon. Friend knows that the national strategy was developed genuinely within the industry. Therefore, employers are involved. I hope that those who are on the committee developing the strategy represent the whole manufacturing sector in the textile industry. I hope that dialogue is taking place, but if increased
    824
    communication is necessary in parts of the industry, my hon. Friend can write to me and I will try to address the issues.
    Mr. David Tredinnick: Does the Minister agree that manufacturing and retailing consultancy-based projects have not worked? We should direct more resources towards design and technology to achieve the added value to which he referred. Will he have a word with the Chancellor of the Exchequer about the possibility of increasing initial allowances so that companies can reinvest in equipment? One machine normally costs about £100,000 and that is a serious problem. In Hinckley in my constituency, companies are considering investing in new equipment, but they think that more should be done to help them to write off that investment in the first couple of years.
    Mr. Caborn: All tax issues are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, and I have no doubt that his remarks will be passed on to my right hon. Friend. The hon. Gentleman is right about training. There must be retraining if we are to increase the value-added element. In that context, the cashmere industry is a model. It has brought in new designers and it is developing the skills base, which has increased the real value-added element in that sector of the industry.
    Mr. Richard Page: Does the Minister recall that the Secretary of State responded to a similarly planted question in June in an equally optimistic manner? To the uninformed, this could almost be a success story. Why does the right hon. Gentleman not come clean and tell the House and the country that since the Government have been in power, more people in the textile industry have lost their jobs than the numbers of those employed in the shipping industry? We discover from the Library and the Textile Institute that 30,000 jobs were lost last year, which is equivalent to 10 per cent. of those employed in the industry. This year, job losses run at more than 17,000 to the end of July. [HON. MEMBERS: "Question!"] Labour Members may not like hearing the truth. When will the Government accept that their handling of the exchange rate, their burdens on business and their stealth taxes are costing jobs in the textile industry, and that there is no other reason for those job losses?
    Mr. Caborn: That question shows the shallowness of Opposition Members' thinking. We are trying to restructure the industry, given the legacy of the previous Administration. For the first time for 20 years, we have brought the industry together to examine structural weaknesses. The neglect of the Conservative Administration has led to the redundancies. The industry has welcomed the Government's approach of new thinking, a move into the 21st century and providing real stability for the first time in a long time.

    Fibre Optic Cable Companies
    Mr. Andrew George (St. Ives): What assessment he has made of the impact of the regulatory framework upon the operation of fibre optic cable companies. [133891]
    The Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs (Dr. Kim Howells): The Government believe that the current overall regulatory framework provides a sound basis for protecting the environment while safeguarding the legitimate interests of public utilities.
    We will continue to promote a high level of investment in the telecommunications department. That is essential for the future of UK business. We are also encouraging the industry to do more to minimise disruption during the laying of cables.
    Mr. George: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. Does he recognise that the majority of transatlantic fibre optic cables have landed in my constituency, with all the associated infrastructure, and that local people see virtually no protection from the Telecommunications Act 1984, which enables the giving of 25-year licences to wave after wave of companies whose cables cross through the area? Does the hon. Gentleman accept that people's lives and livelihoods have been blighted and that the planning system and the landscape have been compromised? Does he accept that there is an urgent need to review regulations that have not kept pace with technological development and commercial exploitation?
    Dr. Howells: I readily acknowledge that the hon. Gentleman's constituents have suffered greatly during the process. The Government fully acknowledge the real concerns about the localised but significant disruption that has taken place. We are pressing the industry voluntarily to improve its performance. There are various initiatives within the street works community, including those to encourage best practice and co-ordination within the industry. We shall back those initiatives with greater powers to enable action to be taken where the industry's response is inadequate, particularly by putting in place a charging system for utilities that take too long to carry out street works by implementing section 74 of the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: The Minister will know that the change in regulations to the telecommunications industry were taken out of the Utilities Bill when the Government halved their proposals during the Session. A White Paper is coming forward, which has been promised for many years. When will it be published, and when does the hon. Gentleman expect the Government to bring forward legislation to introduce a new regulatory framework for the telecommunications and multi-media industry?
    Dr. Howells: That White Paper will be published before Christmas, and we will introduce legislation as soon as parliamentary time allows.

    Land Rover
    Mr. John M. Taylor: If he will make a statement about his discussions with Ford on their plans for the future of Land Rover. [133892]
    The Minister for Competitiveness (Mr. Alan Johnson): We have regular discussions with Ford covering the whole range of its activities in the UK, including Land Rover. As a result of these discussions, I am confident that Land Rover will continue to build
    826
    on its existing worldwide reputation, and that it is well positioned to achieve new record levels of production and sales.
    The recently announced £130 million investment in the Freelander model is a strong demonstration of Ford's commitment to the brand and to the Solihull plant.
    Mr. Taylor: I thank the Minister for that reply. Does he accept that many people in Solihull think that entering the Ford family may be the best thing that could have happened to Land Rover? I draw to the hon. Gentleman's attention Land Rover's training plans—which involve visits to Ford, Volvo and Jaguar sites for about 2,000 members of the work force and are aimed at improving quality and production—and its interesting proposals to give the work force personal off-road driving experience. I invite the Minister to join me in congratulating the company.
    Mr. Johnson: I am happy to join the hon. Gentleman in congratulating Ford on that initiative.
    Mr. Richard Burden: My hon. Friend will be aware that Land Rover is supplied with engines by the Powertrain plant at Longbridge, which also supplies engines to MG Rover, and that that plant remains owned by BMW, which has indicated that it may wish to sell it. In the light of what happened earlier this year, will my hon. Friend join me in saying to BMW that as it makes decisions about the future of the Powertrain plant which supplies engines to Land Rover, it should bear in mind the long-term interests of the west midlands and manufacturing industry, and should show that, unlike the Conservative party, it has an interest in the long-term future of the west midlands?
    Mr. Johnson: Powertrain indeed provides engines to the Solihull plant. I am happy to confirm the Government's agreement with my hon. Friend that we should seek to keep in the UK as many of those manufacturing jobs as possible. We will watch carefully the situation that he describes.

    Small Businesses
    Mr. Tim Boswell: What recent consultations he has held with small business representatives on administrative and compliance burdens. [133893]
    The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Stephen Byers): I meet with small business representatives on a regular basis.
    Mr. Boswell: Although there may be some legitimate room for disagreement between us as to the appropriateness and even the cost of the additional regulatory burdens imposed by the Government across the whole of business, does the Secretary of State agree that, at least in relation to the smaller business, whatever administrative burdens affect the bigger business are magnified many times over, and therefore have an entirely disproportionate administrative effect? Has he noticed, for example, the recent alarming escalation in the number of

    827
    unfair dismissal claims, and is he not a little concerned about that and all the other problems that small employers and small businesses feel that they are facing?
    Mr. Byers: I broadly agree with the general direction of the hon. Gentleman's question. There is no doubt that successive Governments have not done enough to realise the impact of regulations introduced by Government on business in general, and more particularly on small business. Particular demands made on the small business community need to be reflected in our approach. I was pleased that we adopted a different approach, for example, in relation to stakeholder pensions for businesses employing fewer than five people. That will make a real difference. Increasingly, we will need to reflect that more generally in our approach to regulation and related matters.
    Mr. Steve McCabe: Will my right hon. Friend give his assessment of the likely burden on business, especially small businesses, if the so-called fuel protesters attempt to repeat the reckless behaviour that they visited on the country in September?
    Mr. Byers: My hon. Friend makes an important point. The House should recognise the consequences of the fuel disruption that took place during the second week of September. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, who chairs the fuel taskforce, will make a detailed statement on the matter in a few minutes' time: The House should be aware that many businesses, including many small businesses, were in grave financial difficulties and close to going under as a result of the action taken in September.
    Whatever the merits of the argument in one direction or the other, it is simply unacceptable that innocent business people trying to create wealth in our country have to risk going out of business because of protests such as those that we saw in September. I hope that all Members will recognise that we can have a genuine debate about the levels of fuel duty and taxation generally, without that leading to support for the disruption that took place earlier in the year.
    Mr. Peter Lilley: Can the Secretary of State tell us which of the 23 proposed directives listed in the European social agenda document that the Government endorsed yesterday will reduce burdens on business?
    Mr. Byers: Some of them will reduce burdens on business. [HON. MEMBERS: "Which ones?"] The right hon. Gentleman needs to be aware that there is a clear distinction between the Conservative party and the Government. [Interruption.] I hope that Opposition Members will listen to this, because the distinction is important. In the Conservative party, "cutting red tape" is code for cutting basic standards in the workplace. When the Tories talk about cutting red tape, they are talking about attacking the national minimum wage. They are talking about attacking better maternity provisions and the right to paid holidays. They are talking about attacking working parents who are trying to balance holding down a job with being a good parent.
    We will lift the bureaucratic burden on business, but we will not compromise our commitment to decent standards in the workplace.

    Small Business Service
    Ms Sally Keeble: What progress is being made in the development of the Small Business Service. [133895]
    The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Stephen Byers): The Small Business Service has been in place for seven months, and is making excellent progress. Largely as a result of its work, the Paymaster General and I can announce today that from April next year the Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise will change the way in which they deal with companies in financial difficulty. They will use Crown preference to help viable companies through a difficult period by sympathetic consideration of company voluntary agreements. Given that 20 per cent. of all compulsory insolvency cases are currently initiated by the Revenue and by Customs and Excise, the new approach will potentially benefit thousands of small businesses, allowing them to overcome short-term difficulties.
    Ms Keeble: I welcome that information. I also welcome the recent award of a franchise to the Small Business Service in Northamptonshire, as, I am sure, will the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell).
    How will the SBS develop to support small businesses with payroll functions, and how will it deal with working families tax credit and similar important measures introduced by the Government?
    May I also ask my right hon. Friend to examine the specific case—which I can refer to him—of one of my constituents who was bankrupted after a VAT inquiry?
    Mr. Byers: The new agreements that we are announcing today will be able to respond much more sympathetically to exactly those circumstances. As I have said, one in five actions in compulsory insolvency cases are currently initiated by Customs and Excise and the Inland Revenue, but I think that that will change as a result of the new measures.
    My hon. Friend mentioned the support that we can give to small business. I think that we shall be able to provide support through working families tax credit, and also through the new gateway that we hope will exist by Easter next year, which will offer practical sensible advice to the small business community.
    Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: Will the SBS report to the Secretary of State on the impact of IR35 on professional contractors? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that according to a recent poll, although 85 per cent. of those contractors may have voted Labour at the last election, only 3 per cent. intend to vote Labour again? Why have he and his Department characterised people who provide a vital service in our economy as tax dodgers, when all they want to do is accumulate money to enable their businesses to grow?
    Mr. Byers: I am not sure that those people have been described as tax dodgers. As for IR35, we have always

    829
    said that people should pay tax in a fair way, and that is the approach that we have adopted. I am sure that the Small Business Service will talk to those who may be affected by the changes. The service provides a voice for small business at the heart of Government, and I am sure that it will make its views known effectively.

    Fireworks
    Mr. Phil Sawford: What action he is taking to reduce the number of injuries caused by fireworks. [133894]
    The Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs (Dr. Kim Howells): We have jumped backwards now, Mr. Speaker, from question 9 to question 8.
    The comprehensive measures introduced under the Fireworks (Safety) Regulations 1997 are again being supplemented by a robust, targeted firework safety campaign.
    Mr. Sawford: I thank my hon. Friend for the work that he and his Department are doing to reduce the number of injuries caused by fireworks each year. I urge him to consider tighter regulations to restrict sales to organised events only, and thus end the annual ritual whereby hundreds of people suddenly go into their backyards and play with explosives. Every year hundreds of people are maimed and disfigured; sometimes there are fatalities. It is time to take tougher action to reduce those numbers.
    Will my hon. Friend consider further restrictions on the availability of fireworks? [Interruption.] Just listen. Fireworks are currently let off indiscriminately for weeks before bonfire night and for weeks afterwards. That causes great anxiety, especially to elderly people, pet owners and pet lovers. It is perfectly reasonable for the Government to consider the matter.
    Dr. Howells: Obviously fireworks provide a great deal of entertainment for people, because 100 million were sold last year. We would encourage people who are unhappy about buying and letting off fireworks to go to professionally organised displays, but we do not believe that there is a case for a total ban on the retail sale of fireworks. We have legislated to reduce the public's access to more powerful fireworks, but a complete ban could encourage a black market, or lead to people making devices or importing fireworks illegally.
    Mr. John Bercow: Given that the 1997 regulations prohibit the supply of fireworks of erratic flight—mini rockets, aerial shells, aerial maroons, maroons in mortar and shells in mortar—does the Under-Secretary agree that before considering the extension of those regulations, which the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr. Sawford) favours, it would be preferable if he could first tell us what evidence he has adduced of compliance with them?
    Dr. Howells: As the hon. Gentleman is such a jumping cracker, I am surprised that he forgot to mention squibs. As he knows, the rate of accidents has been decreasing since 1994. I believe that the regulations are working well and that we should keep them.

    Miners' Compensation
    Mr. Alan W. Williams: If he will make a statement on the latest position as regards miners' compensation claims. [133898]
    The Minister for Energy and Competitiveness in Europe (Mrs. Helen Liddell): With £170 million spent on vibration white finger and £80 million on respiratory diseases, the total payment made by the Government in miners' compensation is more than £250 million. None the less, my hon. Friend is aware of the frustration that I have felt at the slow progress of payment for respiratory diseases. I am therefore happy to report considerable improvements in recent weeks.
    More than 400 medical assessments a week are being made, and we should shortly see offers being made at a similar rate. In September, because of my frustration, I introduced a new scheme that provides higher and additional expedited payments. Nine thousand revised offers have been made to date, and we anticipate that in the next couple of weeks, the total will be 19,000 offers, which should amount to some £100 million. That money will be available for the mining communities between now and Christmas.
    Mr. Williams: I thank my right hon. Friend for that detailed reply, and for the extra medical centres in Ystrad Mynach and Ammanford in south Wales, which we hope will be up and running before Christmas. Will she consider setting up a new office in south Wales for IRISC, the claims handling arm of the DTI, as there is considerable local demand for one? There are offices in Sheffield and Edinburgh, but a quarter of the claims are made in south Wales. Will she look carefully at the possibility of setting up an office there?
    Mrs. Liddell: Certainly I have no problem with the idea of IRISC setting up an office in south Wales. We must do whatever it takes to get the claims processed. It may help my hon. Friend if I tell him that in Wales alone, £24.5 million has now been paid out in compensation, £18.8 million of that for respiratory diseases. However, for us to turn the offers that we are making into money in miners' pockets before Christmas will take co-operation between my Department and the lawyers. The Law Society has today written to solicitors throughout the country inviting them to seminars to encourage them to co-operate so that we can turn our offers into money in miners' pockets as quickly as possible.
    Mr. David Heath: I welcome the Minister's comments, and agree that the slow rate of progress on respiratory conditions has been frustrating. Will she particularly bear in mind the coalfields that were closed some time ago, such as those in my constituency in Somerset, where miners are older and suffer from exactly the same conditions, but may not have as easy access to the compensation mechanism?
    Mrs. Liddell: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point which also applies to my constituency, where the mines have been closed for a considerable time. If he requires additional assistance to enable him to keep his constituents informed, my officials stand ready to help. This is a complicated matter and I am anxious that

    831
    everything possible should be done to enable us to pay the debt that we owe the miners, whether or not the coalfields are still in operation.
    Mr. Eric Illsley: My right hon. Friend is aware of the delays to compensation claims—many of which she has addressed, which is most welcome. Some of those delays have been caused by the requirements for evidence under the handling agreement. Much of the evidence dates back to the 1950s and is not immediately available. As a result, many claims have to go through the full medical assessment process rather than qualifying for expedited offers. Is there any way in which we can relax the requirements for evidence in an attempt to make it easier to deal with more claims under the expedited system?
    Mrs. Liddell: I very much share my hon. Friend's view. The evidential trail is quite considerable, and I have talked to solicitors with a view to cutting down the requirement for medical records. It may help the House if I point out that many of the miners concerned were working in the coalfields as long ago as 1954, and that some of the medical records are 1,700 pages long. I discussed with the solicitors means of cutting the number of records required, but they made the sensible point that to identify special damages for men who have been seriously affected, there really is a need for access to medical records.
    We are trying to move things along as quickly as possible. We are trying to access work histories, and if we cannot do so we will take a statement of truth, with a view to processing claims as fast as we possibly can. I ask everyone involved to co-operate at every level, and I deprecate those who are trying to spread fear about the process. We will pay the miners, but we need co-operation.
    Mr. Christopher Chope: The Minister may be trying, but she is not succeeding. Why has she not acceded to the request of her noble Friend Lord Islwyn that she resign because of her incompetent handling of this matter?
    Mrs. Liddell: The House will note that there is posturing rather than penitence from the Opposition. The campaign to get compensation for miners started in 1991—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce) laughs, but the Government whom he supported turned their back on the miners. We are acknowledging our responsibility to them—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman shouts from a sedentary position—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce) wished for silence when he was asking questions, and I ask the same from him. He has a very bad habit of shouting across the Chamber and he will not do so.
    Mrs. Liddell: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
    From 1991, it was open to the Conservative party to acknowledge liability in all those claims. It did not do so, and it ill behoves any Conservative Member to attack the
    832
    Government for the progress that we have made, with £250 million going into the mining communities that the previous Government sought to decimate.
    Mr. Michael Clapham: I know of my right hon. Friend's great endeavour in ensuring that a legal formula has been made operationally practicable. Prior to her work, that formula did not actually bring miners compensation. She has been an objective force in ensuring that the compensation scheme is extended to cover surface workers. Where do we stand now on the extension of compensation?
    Mrs. Liddell: I thank my hon. Friend for his important question. In July the Government fully accepted liability for surface dust, and there is now a technical issue concerning how much respirable dust causes emphysema, and how much dust was breathed. In view of the technical issues involved, the matter should be put to the medical reference panel so that doctors for the Government and for the miners can come to an agreement on the level of surface dust to be taken into account. Acknowledging our liability for surface dust was a major move forward.

    Overseas Trade (EU)
    Mr. Win Griffiths: If he will make a statement on Britain's trade within the EU. [133899]
    The Minister for Trade (Mr. Richard Caborn): The EU is the most important market for UK exports of goods and services and accounts for over 50 per cent. of total UK exports. The EU is also a major source of imports, which widens consumer choice, improves value for money and provides essential components that are then used for exports.
    Mr. Griffiths: In thanking my right hon. Friend for his answer, may I ask him to congratulate all those involved in providing exports of goods and services, in which we are moving into a position of strength? Will he confirm that about 3 million British jobs are involved, and will he give further information on a standard planning region basis—in particular, on Wales?
    Mr. Caborn: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that about 3 million jobs are linked directly and indirectly to exports of goods and services to the EU. I do not have with me the statistics that he requires, but shall provide the information in writing and place it in the Library.
    Mr. Eric Forth: With how many countries outside the EU is there a favourable trade agreement?
    Mr. Caborn: There are a number of favourable trade agreements with countries outside the EU, as the right hon. Gentleman knows. The EU does not debar this country from having trade agreements with other countries, and we are effective in making favourable agreements outside the EU.
    Mr. Bill Rammell: Given that we undertake three times as much trade within the EU as we do with the United States of America, does the Minister agree that it would be contrary to our national interest to join the

    833
    North American Free Trade Agreement? Does he agree that joining NAFTA would require us to leave the EU, and why does he think the Conservative party are now proposing that?
    Mr. Caborn: That is like a number of other red herrings that the Opposition trail across the political spectrum from time to time. When the matter raised by my hon. Friend was studied by the International Trade Commission in Washington, some interesting remarks were made. In a discussion of the UK's possible membership of NAFTA, which had been suggested by some Opposition Members, the ITC said that it would be insignificant for trade, as well as being a political non-starter. That description probably applies to the Opposition as well.

    Euro
    Mr. Stephen O'Brien: What plans he has to encourage the private sector to intensify its preparations for membership of the euro. [133900]
    The Minister for Energy and Competitiveness in Europe (Mrs. Helen Liddell): The second national changeover plan was published in March 2000.
    Mr. O'Brien: The Secretary of State, and now the Minister, have failed miserably to answer the unambiguous questions put by my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon) and subsequently by my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan). Given that the Department and Ministers have a prime responsibility to account to the House for the expenditure of taxpayers' money, will the Minister identify exactly how much has been allocated in the DTI budget for the expenditure of taxpayers' money on the changeover plan for the private sector, whether to support it or directly to subsidise it? Exactly when does expenditure start—or when is the private sector being advised that it will start—in support of the Labour Government's attempts to scrap the pound?
    Mrs. Liddell: The hon. Gentleman should be aware that the Department's priority at the moment is to ensure that British industry at all levels is able to trade with the eurozone countries, given that the euro is a reality in those countries. To that end, in September I announced the "3 Es" campaign, which concentrates on practical advice on electronic commerce, the euro and exports. The total cost of that campaign is £100,000. It involves the production of 50,000 CD-ROMs and seminars throughout the country, and has been much welcomed by the business community.
    Mr. Peter L. Pike: Is it not a fact that in areas of the country that depend heavily on the manufacturing sector, large manufacturers are already trading and dealing in the euro? They have to do so if they want to survive in the European market.
    Mrs. Liddell: Sensible and prudent businesses are making the necessary arrangements to seize competitive
    834
    advantage in dealing with the euro—and they are not in any way dissuaded from doing that by Opposition Members' comments.
    Mr. Nick Gibb: We are not talking about campaigns and seminars. If the Minister wants a public debate on the euro, why are she and the Secretary of State keeping secret from the House the cost to the public sector of conversion? The work has been done on that. We know that it has. She does not know the cost to the private sector of converting to the euro. Why will she not disclose the figure for the state sector? What is she hiding?
    Mrs. Liddell: The hon. Gentleman should try to do his homework rather better. If he looks at the preparations for the introduction of the single currency in the eurozone countries, he will find that no eurozone country can yet say what the total cost of conversion will be. I have seen estimates ranging from 0.1 to 0.5 per cent. of GDP. In this country it would be impossible to make a guesstimate, which is what the hon. Gentleman seems to suggest should be done. I suggest that he concentrate rather more on the facts and rather less on rhetoric.

    Rogue Traders
    Ms Bridget Prentice: What measures he is taking to protect consumers from rogue traders. [133901]
    The Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs (Dr. Kim Howells): We are improving protection against rogue traders in three main areas: through better enforcement of consumer legislation, including e-commerce; by pursuing individual cases that are causing particular concern, such as the servicing and repair of cars; and through the modernising of consumer advice networks.
    Ms Prentice: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that answer. I know that he is very much in favour of the market—something for which I have some sympathy—but does he not think that it is time to recognise the consumer as the market? In that light, when is the injunctions directive likely to be introduced? What might its main effects be?
    Dr. Howells: I believe that the market offers the best protection for consumers and the widest choice possible, which is better for them, but I am pleased that the injunctions directive will be introduced early next year. It will enable named bodies to take out injunctions in local courts against rogue traders. That will strengthen legitimate businesses and do much to protect vulnerable consumers.
    Miss Anne McIntosh: Can the Minister help older people who are preyed on by rogue traders asking to tarmac their drives? They often have no comeback and could not afford an injunction through the court.
    Dr. Howells: Yes, indeed. The vulnerable people whom the hon. Lady mentions will not have to take out those injunctions. They can be taken out by trading standards officers or other named bodies. We know, for example, that the Consumers Association has become the named body on the mis-selling of mortgages. We will enable such bodies to seek injunctions in court to stop those gangsters trading.

    Aerospace Industry
    Dr. Doug Naysmith: If he will make a statement on the role he envisages for regional development agencies in promoting innovation and investment in the aerospace industry. [133902]
    The Minister for Competitiveness (Mr. Alan Johnson): Among the statutory purposes of the regional development agencies is the promotion of business efficiency, investment and competitiveness in their
    836
    regions. In those regions in which the aerospace industry is significant, we envisage a close relationship between the RDA and companies in the sector on those issues.
    Dr. Naysmith: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware of the importance of the aerospace industry not only to my constituency but to greater Bristol, and, indeed, to the whole of the south-west? Is he prepared to say that he will encourage the RDA to support and to encourage not only firms such as BAE Systems and Rolls-Royce, but smaller firms in the supply chain, which need that assistance and encouragement just as much?
    Mr. Johnson: I am, of course, aware of the historical importance of Bristol and the south-west in the development of the aerospace industry. It would be perverse if the RDA in that area did not address the very issues that my hon. Friend has raised. As a result of our support for the A3XX, we expect 22,000 new jobs to be created and 62,000 existing jobs to be safeguarded. That is a very important development for manufacturing industry in this country.

Fuel Contingency Planning
12.31 pm
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the contingency arrangements being put in place in the event of further blockades of fuel or other essential supplies.
The background to these arrangements is the severe disruption to fuel supplies which occurred between 7 and 14 September.
Since the protests, a large number of meetings with outside bodies have been held by Ministers across Government to discuss the concerns over fuel prices, in particular as they impact on the farming and haulage industries which are already facing major structural problems. Indeed, prior to the protests, there were many such meetings and in the March Budget, as well as ending the fuel duty escalator, in place since 1993, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer cut vehicle excise duty for the haulage industry and for smaller vehicles.
In the past few weeks, Ministers in various Departments have held numerous meetings with organisations campaigning about the high cost of fuel. These include the Road Haulage Association, the Freight Transport Association, the Fuel Forum, the People's Fuel Lobby, Farmers for Action and the Disabled Drivers' Association. In addition to setting up the fuel taskforce, we have also held a number of meetings with oil company representatives, the trade unions and representatives of the food and other industries affected by the protests. And Ministers have also visited all the main fuel refineries and depots to talk at first hand to the tanker drivers, to company managers, to the police and to others about the lessons to be learned from the protests in September.
As a result, I think that no one can fairly say that we have not made every effort to listen to people's concerns, and of course in the days that remain before the Chancellor's statement, we shall continue to do so.
Let me now explain to the House why it is so important to make proper preparations to protect people, industry and services so far as possible against further disruption.
The United Kingdom now has the fourth largest economy in the world. Employment is at record levels and inflation is the lowest in Europe. But, as with all modern economies, fundamental changes in the way in which we live and work, and all the just-in-time arrangements, increase our vulnerability to those determined to cause disruption.
Whatever the motives of those involved, the disruption that took place in September very nearly caused serious damage to our economy.
The British Chambers of Commerce has published details of the effects of the disruption on the commercial activities of its members across the country. For example, in St. Helens, it reported that more than a quarter of businesses lost orders, 6 per cent. laid off staff and a third predicted a long-term impact on sales. In Peterborough, almost four in 10 firms reported that they had suffered lost sales and 16 per cent. said that they had had to close temporarily. Many other companies suffered financial
838
problems and lost orders. The British Chambers of Commerce concluded from its research that if the protests had "persisted for much longer" they would have caused
severe damage to many firms from which some would not have recovered.
That conclusion has been endorsed, among many others, by the Confederation of British Industry and the Trades Union Congress.
Later today, I shall be placing in the Library a report summarising information available to Departments about the impact of the disruption.
The blockades also disrupted essential public services. At some blockades, the protesters sought to excuse the impact of the disruption by letting through supplies which they had judged to be essential. However, there are literally millions of people who perform functions without which the health and other essential services would grind to a halt—from nurses, doctors, hospital receptionists and cleaners, to volunteers delivering meals on wheels, cooks, telephone operators and, of course, the patients themselves. They all needed fuel, yet their needs were barely recognised by those who were at the terminal gates.
It is therefore not from any desire whatever for confrontation—[Interruption.] It is not out of any desire on the Labour Benches for confrontation—which we still seek to avoid—but because of our responsibilities as a Government to the country as a whole that we must now make preparations to minimise the risk of that happening again.
So, following the September events, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister asked me to chair a fuel taskforce to help ensure that Government, industry and others were better prepared to ensure a continuity of supplies for the future. The taskforce included Ministers and representatives from the devolved Administrations in Scotland and in Wales, police, the oil industry, trade unions and others. It has met on four occasions. Its members first agreed a memorandum of understanding, which committed all concerned to work together to ensure continuity of oil supplies.
The arrangements include plans to direct fuel supplies to a limited number of designated filling stations and to give priority to essential users. We have upgraded arrangements to ensure that local authorities and other priority users are better prepared for any future disruption. As I told the House in a written statement last week, and as my hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces repeated on Monday, we have asked the Ministry of Defence to train military drivers to help drive tankers should such assistance prove necessary; but that would be very much as a last resort. Preparations have also been made to help to protect food depots, to keep major roads open and to protect potential targets other than oil terminals.
There has of course been a lot of debate about whether intimidation of drivers took place. It could well be that some drivers were sympathetic to the aims of the protesters. Many of those who were involved in the protests were intent on acting lawfully and peacefully, and did so. Peaceful protest is an important right in any properly functioning democracy. It is a right that I regard it as one of my first duties to defend, as do the police. However, the behaviour of some of the protesters did create a climate in which the managers and the drivers themselves judged that it was unsafe to allow normal operations to continue.

839
Along with ministerial colleagues, I have spoken to a large number of the tanker drivers involved. Those whom I met told me of a real sense of fear that they felt about driving in the face of threats of intimidation and of physical attack. I am placing in the Library of the House a detailed log of 180 incidents of intimidation recorded by the oil companies and amended only to avoid identifying publicly the drivers involved. That picture of intimidation is confirmed by the Transport and General Workers Union, whose members form a substantial majority of the drivers concerned.
Tactics of intimidation are unacceptable in any circumstances, but particularly so against the driver of an oil tanker in personal charge of many thousands of litres of highly explosive fuel. Police and the oil companies have therefore drawn up detailed plans better to safeguard tanker drivers from the threat of intimidation and better to ensure that the tankers can move freely on to and along the highway. Tanker drivers have the right to go about their daily business in security and safety. Ensuring that is a central aim of our preparations.
Let me repeat that the last thing that the Government want is any kind of confrontation. There will always be people who hold strong and opposing views on many issues—including, today, what to do about oil prices, the problems affecting farmers and the difficulties affecting the road haulage industry. Peaceful protest can and does play an important role in drawing such concerns to the attention of Government and of Parliament. It is then for us in Government and Parliament to make choices.
I hope, however, that the whole House will join me in saying that no one has the right to instigate the kind of disruption that we saw in September, and still less to threaten the disruption now being prepared. We have already heard public threats to blockade not only the fuel supply but food distribution depots. The consequences of such disruption are obvious, and they would hit the weakest and the most vulnerable first. There can be no justification for any such action, and it is opposed by every employers' organisation and trade union and by established hauliers' and farmers' representatives.
The measures that I have outlined today should ensure that the Government, industry and our health and other public services are better prepared to cope with the sort of direct action that we witnessed in September, but real risks will remain if people persist in protesting in an extreme and irresponsible way. Those now seeking further disruption must understand that their demands could not be met without great damage to jobs and industry, to essential services, including the national health service, to pensioners and to children. We all have responsibilities.
Whatever the supposed Budget surplus—and some figures being mooted are wildly exaggerated—Government action is necessarily limited in three ways: it must be consistent with keeping interest rates, and so mortgages, at their present low level; it must not prevent us from taking action to support pensioners who also need help; and it must not change the absolutely essential programme of investment in key public services, in schools, hospitals, transport and the police, which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced in July.
The right to argue, to complain and to protest is an essential feature of our democratic society. Preventing law-abiding people from going about their business,
840
and threatening the well-being of the country, is not. I hope that the whole House will join me in support of the measures and of the approach that I have outlined today.
Miss Ann Widdecombe: I thank the Home Secretary for that statement. I feel obliged to observe that for the second time he has failed to deliver to the Opposition a copy of the statement in reasonable time. The conventions of the House—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Lady must have a hearing.
Miss Widdecombe: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The conventions of the House, which are there for the purpose of calling the Government to account, suggest that the Government should give statements to the Opposition at least 30 minutes in advance of delivery. We received this statement little more than a quarter of an hour before it was due to be made. [Interruption.] The mood of the House indicates the defensiveness on the Government side. [Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Caplin, you must be calm.
Miss Widdecombe: The Opposition will support all measures that are reasonable and sensible to keep the economy moving, to keep food in the shops and fuel in the pumps and, above all, to keep the emergency services in action. Nevertheless, is not the real reason for any impending fuel crisis this arrogant and out-of-touch Government's refusal to cut fuel taxes? Is it not the case that, having reached the top of the escalator, they simply refuse to get off? Is it not the case that they have such limited experience of filling up a petrol tank for themselves that they have no idea of the effect on ordinary, hard-working families? I assume that the Home Secretary's driver fills up his tank and carries the can for that.
The Government have caused this crisis by their refusal to listen to the hard-pressed people of Britain or to the consistent warnings of the Opposition. Will the Home Secretary say now, simply and straightforwardly and in words of one syllable, whether he accepts that fuel tax is too high? Is not the Home Secretary stoking up a crisis by advocating panic buying and stockpiling? Presumably to divert attention from his failures, is not the right hon. Gentleman attempting to scare the nation with the ghost of this Government's credibility?
Is the Home Secretary aware of the statements made by several police forces across the country, and by Sir John Evans on behalf of the Association of Chief Police Officers, that the previous protests were overwhelmingly peaceful? The right hon. Gentleman makes large claims about intimidation and violence, but the police organisations have said that
there was a good working rapport between police commanders and the pickets
and that
the impression among police officers was that the protest was peaceful.
We can sort this out right now. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House how many people have been arrested or prosecuted for violence during the pickets?

841
Will he say whether hauliers who engage in peaceful protests have been or will be threatened with the removal of their operating licences? Have special branch officers been used to spy on fuel protesters' meetings? If so, was the right hon. Gentleman aware of it, and did he authorise it?
Will the Home Secretary tell the House how many drivers are being trained by the military for the emergency? Will he largely be using members of the Territorial Army? If so, does he not see the supreme irony that many of those troops who are trained Army drivers will in civilian life be tanker and lorry drivers, and that they will therefore be paid by the taxpayer for doing a job that they would have been doing anyway? I want the exact figures—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. I cannot hear the right hon. Lady. I must be able to hear her.
Miss Widdecombe: I accept that he may need a bit of notice before he can produce them, but I want the exact figures from the Home Secretary on the number of regular drivers being trained, the numbers of Territorial Army personnel involved, and the numbers of those personnel who are lorry drivers in civilian life.
Will the Home Secretary comment on the fact that the list of designated petrol stations dated from the time of the Gulf war, 10 years ago? As a result, many of the stations designated were closed or were inadequate. Is not the right hon. Gentleman responsible for that? What is he going to do to rectify the matter next time?
This time, will the Home Secretary also designate for priority vehicles which transport people with disabilities for essential purposes? He did not do that last time. Disabled organisations say that the fact that those vehicles were not designated last time caused real hardship. I should be grateful for the right hon. Gentleman's confirmation that those vehicles will be so designated if that is necessary this time.
On behalf of the Opposition, I urge protesters not to resort to unlawful action, but rather to use the ballot box to get rid of this lying, cheating, arrogant, stealth-taxing Labour Government.
Mr. Straw: I seem to recall that Sir Winston Churchill once observed, "If you have a weak case, shout." The more the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) ranted, the less convincing her case became. As someone who has dined out for years on moral absolutes, her equivocation on this issue will be as unconvincing outside the House as it was inside it.
Let me deal with the points that the right hon. Lady raised. First, I am sorry that the statement was delivered late. My understanding was that she received it at 12.10 pm. The former Home Secretary, the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), was very good about ensuring that, whenever possible, I received statements well in advance. However, as the right hon. Lady knows—and she often places this on the record—I have sought whenever possible to give her sometimes even more notice than I was given in opposition. She often has three or four hours in which to read documents. There were good reasons why the detail of the statement could not be delivered to her until 12.10 pm.
842
The right hon. Lady spoke about the Opposition's persistent warnings that fuel taxes were too high. Her recollection must be very different from mine. The previous Government introduced the fuel duty escalator in March 1993 and increased it from 3 per cent. to 5 per cent. in November 1993. At the election, at which they stood with such spectacular results—for us—they boasted in their campaign guide about the way in which they had increased the fuel duty escalator. The shadow Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Portillo) said in this place that the fuel escalator was intended to raise revenue. The same right hon. Gentleman said to Sir David Frost in July of this year, when asked whether he would definitely reduce the tax on petrol:
Well…I…I'm not getting into the business of guarantees.
I do not know what "persistent warnings" we were given—until the Leader of the Opposition saw a passing bandwagon and jumped on it.
The right hon. Lady asked me about whether the protests were overwhelmingly peaceful last time. I have already said that many protesters acted lawfully and peacefully. When will we hear unequivocal condemnation from the right hon. Lady and the Leader of the Opposition of the fact that some of the protesters went way beyond the bounds of peaceful protest, and that there was intimidation? There is no way that she and others can deny the truth of that—the log shows it.
The right hon. Lady asked about operators' licences.
Miss Widdecombe: What about arrests?
Mr. Straw: The number of arrests is well known. I think it was about two. When action is plainly unlawful—for example, in areas of high crime, where equal intimidation takes place and where witnesses are intimidated—the Opposition are normally the first to say that the police should have made more arrests, not fewer, in the face of that evidence. Yet in the face of 180 separately recorded instances of disruption, the right hon. Lady seems to be saying that it is a good thing, not a bad thing, that few arrests were made.
The right hon. Lady asked about operators' licences. Of course, if hauliers conduct themselves peacefully, there is no threat to their operators' licences. [HON. MEMBERS: "Ah.] Well of course that is true. If they conduct themselves in a way that breaches the law, however, there may be a threat to their licences.
The right hon. Lady asked me about special branch. She was a Home Office Minister, so she very well knows that there are no circumstances in which a Home Secretary will tell the House which actions of particular groups are being investigated by law enforcement agencies. I have two things to say to her: I have ensured that all the law enforcement agencies properly observe the strictly laid down requirements of the law, and I shall continue to do so.
The right hon. Lady asked how many drivers in the Army had been trained for possible use. I understand that up to 1,000 have been trained, and that they are regular members of the armed forces.
The right hon. Lady asked about designated petrol stations—
Miss Widdecombe: What about territorials?
Mr. Straw: I have just said they are regulars. There is a difference between regular soldiers and territorials.

843
The right hon. Lady asked about designated petrol—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) has already asked about the territorials. She cannot shout about them while she is sitting down.
Mr. Straw: I do my best with the right hon. Lady, Mr. Speaker.
The right hon. Lady asked about designated petrol stations. We drew up a list and, because it had to be done quickly, it contained some inaccuracies. We have taken steps since to ensure that the list of those that could be used in the event of further disruption is more accurate. The right hon. Lady asked about people with disabilities. I understand the point, and I have to say that the disabled suffered disruption to their lives not because of action that we took, but because of actions taken by people whom the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) has described as "fine upstanding men."
The right hon. Lady accused us of being out of touch. I do not want to intrude on her private grief within her own party, but I am tempted to do so. When it comes to being out of touch not only with the country but with the Conservative party, the right hon. Lady takes first prize for what happened at her party conference. Before she tries to extract the mote in other people's eyes, she might look at the beam in her own eye.
Mr. Andrew Miller: My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has visited the Stanlow site with me and is aware that the main artery roads, including those in surrounding villages, are in a major hazard zone. Will he confirm that if there are repeats of the activities that occurred on the nights of 7 and 8 September, everything will be done to remove any blockade that impedes the access of emergency services? The people who took that action were subsequently described as "fine upstanding men", but included some who said that they did not care if Stanlow blew up. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that such action does not happen again, and will he condemn anyone who supports such activity?
Mr. Straw: I wish to record my personal thanks to my hon. Friend for the action that he took as the protests became more substantial. He worked overnight with the police to try to ensure some semblance of supply from the major terminal at Stanlow. On the removal of blockades, my hon. Friend and I held discussions with Shell, the oil company that operates Stanlow, and with Cheshire police. Much effort has been made to ensure that, while people should be able to protest peacefully, they cannot take blockading action as they did previously. My hon. Friend will appreciate that operational decisions are a matter for the chief constable and his constables, and are not a matter for the Home Secretary or any politician.
Of course I condemn the utterly irresponsible statements that were made by some of the protesters at Stanlow. The fact that people, or perhaps only one person, spoke about not caring whether Stanlow blew up underlines the fact that we are dealing not with some inert,
844
safe load and product but with a highly explosive product. For that reason, the oil companies, their managers and the drivers have all worked commendably within a safety culture. That has to be taken into account when making a judgment about whether it was reasonable for the drivers, in the face of those threats, not to drive.
Mr. Simon Hughes: I thank the Home Secretary for his statement. There will not be any equivocation from the Liberal Democrat Benches. The Government have a duty to protect the liberty of the protesters, but they equally have a responsibility to protect the liberty and safety of people going about their proper jobs as drivers and employees of the oil industry. They equally have a duty to make sure that essential supplies can get to their destination so that the country is not disrupted by any protest more than any other. It is important that, although fuel protesters should be able to put their case, the country remembers that there are equally those who believe that fuel prices need not be reduced, and that they have a case. We should also remember that pensioners, who may not have lorries, tractors and mobile phones or the ability to mobilise, have just as much right to have their case heard by the Government as the people who just shout more loudly sometimes, whatever the merit of their case.
Will the Home Secretary confirm his responsibilities? Can we take it that his Department will co-ordinate the operation and that all the information that people need will be obtainable from one central place, namely, the Home Office? Can we take it that there will be no confusion this time about where the supplies can be obtained or about who the priority users are, which was clearly a muddle earlier in the year? Can we take it that the Government will have an education campaign to tell people not only how to respond but how to use fuel less and be less fuel-dependent, so that we have a strategically sensible policy followed by the public as well as the Government?
May I check that the right hon. Gentleman agrees that, just as we have to deal with people who, under the guise of being football supporters, are professional troublemakers, we should be equally tough on people using the fuel dispute to be professional troublemakers? Will the police deal with far left and far right groups just as ferociously and ensure that they do not distort the debate?
The Home Secretary said nothing about when the emergency measures would end. Is there a timetable, and how will the House hold the Government to account for how they are carried out?
Mr. Straw: There is scarcely a need for the hon. Gentleman to say that his party has not equivocated on this issue, because that is on the record. I thank him and his colleagues for being able to distinguish between might and right. People have different opinions about fuel prices. It was not until the protests started that the Conservative party changed its view. [HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish!"] Conservative Members say that it is rubbish. I am sorry that they are not getting the point; so let me repeat it. On "Breakfast with Frost" on 16 July this year, the shadow Chancellor, when asked whether he would give a guarantee that he would reduce the tax on petrol, waffled for a bit while he thought of an answer and then said:
I'm not getting into the business of guarantees.

845
That is the fact of the matter. Words to that effect were repeated, even in the days leading up to the protest. Only after they had seen the bandwagon did the Conservatives decide to offer the 3p cut in fuel duty.
On the issue of co-ordination, I am the responsible Minister. As the hon. Gentleman knows, I chair the civil contingencies committee. It would fall to me to make reports to the House on co-ordination in respect of public safety. If there is trouble of the kind that took place on the previous occasion, the arrangements would be physically sited not in the Home Office but in the Cabinet Office, because that is the best place in which to co-ordinate them.
The hon. Gentleman asks that there should be no confusion next time. We shall do our best to reduce the lack of clarity that existed in certain circumstances previously, but we cannot guarantee that no difficulties will arise—precisely because we cannot fully anticipate the exact nature of the disruption. However, during the past seven weeks, we have, of course, tried to learn lessons from the disruption that took place.
The hon. Gentleman asks about priority users. I understand from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry that a list will be published later today.
I accept the hon. Gentleman's point about education. However, we must acknowledge that the arrangements that we could set up in an extreme situation could not guarantee continuity of supplies at their current levels—as I have already made clear. Supplies would be significantly reduced.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned professional troublemakers—I exempt the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald from that term. However, I accept the hon. Gentleman's point that she and her right hon. and hon. Friends continue to exhibit extraordinary equivocation.
The hon. Gentleman asked when the order would be renewed. The Order in Council obtained from Her Majesty by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on—I think—8 September has to be renewed before 19 November. It will, I understand, be subject to debate in the House.
Mr. Frank Dobson: On behalf of all sensible people, I welcome the measures announced by my right hon. Friend. When he next meets representatives from the oil companies, will he remind them that more than three quarters of this year's increase in the price of petrol and diesel resulted from the increases imposed by the companies, and that the ensuing profiteering has been amply demonstrated by Shell's announcement today of profits for the previous quarter that have risen by 80 per cent., compared with those for the same quarter last year? Will he remind the companies that that is all the more reason why the people managing the terminals and depots should make a much better effort than they made in September to ensure that supplies get through? If they do not, the people of this country will think that the companies are incompetent as well as greedy.
Mr. Straw: There have been intense discussions on co-operation with the oil companies—in almost all of
846
which I was involved—to ensure better arrangements for the future, if they are needed. I am certain that we shall enjoy the full co-operation of the companies.
As for the profits made by the oil companies, I am sure that representatives of all the oil companies will be listening to this debate and to the comments of my right hon. Friend. It is for them—not for me—to explain the level of their profits.
Mr. Michael Howard: As the Government are in receipt of a huge windfall benefit—largely as a result of increased petroleum revenue tax receipts—which was quite unforeseen at the time of the Budget, why do the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues persist in advancing the completely false argument that they cannot cut fuel duty without affecting their spending plans?
Mr. Straw: Coming from the right hon. and learned Gentleman, the shift in his party's position is quite extraordinary. Of course, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will take account of the revenues available to him. He always does so—as does any prudent Chancellor. However, I think the right hon. and learned Gentleman understands that—as I explained in my statement—my right hon. Friend has to take many other factors into account, including the effect of any changes in revenue levels on the overall level of demand and, as a result, on interest and mortgage rates.
I also have to say to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that he cannot get out of the box that the Opposition are now in on taxing and spending. It was not in March that the shadow Chancellor accused us of excessive spending plans; that was as late as late July, when he said, with the full support of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, that the spending plans of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which have provided for substantial increases in investment in education, health, transport and the police, amounted to a splurge. The clear implication was not that we should increase spending but that we should cut it.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Can my right hon. Friend tell me at what point the police underwent their dramatic conversion on all these bosses' blockades, when they changed the attitude that they had displayed in all the strikes and picket lines that I went on, and became all touchy-feely and sensitive to the people on the refinery blockades? Will he also bear it in mind that some of us believe in the language of priorities in relation to spending? Will he convey to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that, now that he has built up a surplus, we do not want an education on how to spend it from people who were experts in building up a deficit?
Will my right hon. Friend listen to me, because I have played a part in building up this surplus? Will he bear in mind—and tell all the fuel protesters—that next week we want more money for the health service, which has given many of us a second mortgage on another life? We want more money for those regional areas where they shut the pits and we need more employment. And we need more money for education. If there is anything left in this surplus—I hope that there is a big chunk—we want the rest of it for the pensioners. When my right hon. Friend

847
has done all that, he should remember the old adage that you can only spend the money once, and then tell the fuel protesters, "We've spent it all."
Mr. Straw: I commend my hon. Friend for the prudence that he has just shown. Of course he is right; this is about priorities. We cannot spend the money twice and the Government have to make choices—sometimes very difficult choices. One of the many things that has led members of the Conservative party completely to exclude themselves from the prospect of responsibility in government is their pretence that this money can be spent twice over, as well as their record, as my hon. Friend says, which was not about creating surpluses—except in the late 1980s, when they splurged a surplus, with disastrous consequences for this country. During the period when this lot—these people—were holding ministerial office, there was no surplus and we ended up with a deficit of, I believe, £28 billion.
Let me deal with the point that my hon. Friend raised about methods of policing. Many people have said to me, "The police did not act as swiftly as they did in the miners' strike."
Mr. Skinner: You bet they didn't.
Mr. Straw: I tell my hon. Friend that no more than he did I approve of the tactics of the previous Government—many of those tactics in respect of the miners' strikes. There are also many police officers, who are now in senior positions in the police service, who at the time were very uncomfortable about actions that they felt they were asked to undertake.
In my judgment, the police deserve congratulations on the careful and proportionate way in which they sought to police these actions. These are decisions that they must take, and are not for me. I place it on the record that everyone—the media, the Government, the police and many others—did not anticipate the speed and scale with which the disruption took place, but in a matter of days arrangements were put in place with the police to ensure that their policing was proportionate to the problems, and that every effort was made to reduce the disruption.
The police have assured me, given what we now know and the serious threats being placed on the record about future disruption not only to fuel supplies but to food supplies and other essential supplies in our society, that they will take appropriate action to deal with it.
Sir David Madel:In his discussions with senior police officers, did the Home Secretary remind them that secondary picketing is unlawful and that, even when picketing is allowed, there must be no than six people involved at the place of work, because numbers of people can be intimidatory? Has there been close liaison between the police and the Transport and General Workers Union on how drivers will be looked after if—and we hope that this does not happen—there is any form of the trouble that we saw last time?
Mr. Straw: Secondary picketing raises an interesting question. Had it been an industrial dispute, the law, as it now stands, would have meant that employers and the
848
police would have been able to take action in respect of the protests outside the terminals. Because it was not an industrial dispute, the police were constrained at the beginning in the action that they felt able to take.
I am sorry that I did not quite hear the hon. Gentleman's second point, but I think that I picked up its gist. He asked whether arrangements are being made between the police, the oil company management and the drivers better to secure the drivers' safety in the event of protests. The answer to that is yes.
Mr. Michael Connarty: May I say first that I hope that my right hon. Friend's plans will never be put into action? I represent a constituency that contains Grangemouth, Scotland's only refinery. When I talked to the protesters, they said that they wanted to get round the table with the Government and their leader, Robert Burns, said that that was the sensible approach. We have heard today that that has happened, and only the most irresponsible of truck drivers and the most irresponsible of politicians would say anything other than that there should not be another protest.
May I ask my right hon. Friend specifically whether he has talked to the media? When I visited Grangemouth on Tuesday 12 September, I talked to the people on the picket line and they seemed to be very reasonable about talking to the Government. When I returned on 13 September, I found more than 500 ordinary citizens and their children blocking the road to the refinery. The television cameras had broadcast an appeal by one of the so-called leaders of the protests for people to come to the refinery to join the blockade. A mêlée went on till after midnight on 13 September. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that the media do not broadcast stupid messages from the protesters if that brings out ordinary citizens to what they think is a jamboree? As my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) pointed out, such places are dangerous zones where tankers with thousands of litres of fuel in them pass up and down. Such appeals are irresponsible and we must ensure that the media do not allow what happened to take place again.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Before the Home Secretary replies, may I point out that we must have brief questions? Otherwise some hon. Members will not be able to take part.
Mr. Straw: I shall try, Mr. Speaker, to give brief answers.
Yes, we have been speaking to all the representatives of the peaceful protests outside the refineries and to many others. However, whatever the media reported, some people took unlawful action to blockade access and egress to terminals. I have not had any discussions with the media about how they report the events, and I do not intend to do so. It is a matter for them.
Mr. Owen Paterson: How dare the Home Secretary accuse my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) and Conservative Members of jumping on a bandwagon? His memory is at fault. I had an Adjournment debate on

849
11 November 1998 on the issue, and Conservative Members have consistently voted against every vindictive increase in fuel duties—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not want to hear about voting records. I want a short, sharp question from the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Paterson: I bitterly regret that this issue has not been sorted out in Parliament. Should the Government continue with their policy and a crisis be provoked, will the Home Secretary provide a telephone or fax number to which Members of Parliament can address urgent requests from constituents for help? During the previous crisis, I faxed Downing street about a very urgent issue and received no—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I call the Home Secretary.
Mr. Straw: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman did not receive details of the designated line that we set up for Members. We shall seek to set up another one. I am sorry that I missed the hon. Gentleman's Adjournment debate. What I have quoted in relation to the shadow Chancellor's attitude is accurate.
Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: Would not hauliers do well to reflect on what would happen if beer drinkers blocked the breweries and the motorways because they wanted to pay less duty; if smokers blocked tobacco plants and the motorways because they wanted to pay less duty on cigarettes; if peace campaigners blocked the motorways because they wanted to avoid paying tax towards the defence industry; and if environmentalists blocked the motorways because they thought the hauliers should pay more tax? There would be chaos. It is a matter now of who runs Britain.
Mr. Straw: With those graphic questions, my hon. Friend illustrates that there are limits to protests. Protest must be peaceful and—
Miss Widdecombe: We do not condone law breaking.
Mr. Straw: I am glad to hear that from the right hon. Lady. She should be saying that rather more clearly than she has in the past.
Of course there are limits to peaceful protests. As for who runs Britain in a democratic society, it is a matter for Parliament and government. It is a matter for Parliament, through the ballot box, in reflecting the will of the people. There are many ways in which people can democratically express either their support for or opposition to the Government of the day. I celebrate, support and defend those avenues, but blocking motorways is not one of them.
Mr. Simon Thomas: I ask the Home Secretary for further reassurances on the number of designated filling stations in rural areas, especially in west Wales, which is at the end of the distribution line. I had only one such station in my constituency. Unfortunately, it had closed four years ago. The one 200 yards down the road could not obtain fuel because it was not on the designated list. My information is that emergency services
850
in west Wales were within one and a half days of collapsing. Can the right hon. Gentleman assure me, even at this late stage, that rural areas and west Wales will be looked after with designated fuel stations?
Mr. Straw: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that many people in rural areas were particularly badly affected. Along with the north-west, my region, Wales was perhaps the worst affected part of the United Kingdom.
As the hon. Gentleman may know, my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan), the First Secretary of the National Assembly for Wales, has been heavily involved in discussions. I pay tribute to him and his colleagues for all their work to ensure that we are fully apprised of the needs of Wales, particularly those of rural areas. We are ensuring that the list of designated filling stations will be much more accurate than previously.
Ms Bridget Prentice: I understand my right hon. Friend when he says that the Government do not seek confrontation. However, sometimes some people need to be confronted. It is unacceptable that the leaders of so-called fine upstanding men should be allowed to stand outside the House in an anti-democratic and anarchic fashion and threaten the lives of people by the protests that they intend to make. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that when they have the despicably entitled Jarrow march—they are as ignorant in their understanding of history as in their understanding of democracy—the police will not fail to ensure that they are arrested and that the courts will take the full panoply of the criminal law into account when anyone disrupts our civilised society?
Mr. Straw: On the particular point that my hon. Friend raises, as I have made it clear, operational decisions are a matter for the chief officers of police and their constables, and they operate, properly and necessarily by law, independently of Ministers or the police authorities. I can also tell my hon. Friend that of course the police are taking account of all the known threats and are adjusting their plans accordingly.
Mr. Roy Beggs: Having had some experience of protest and of endeavouring to ensure that the protest was peaceful, I agree with what has been said. Intimidation, violence and threats damage the case of those who want fuel costs reduced. I ask the Home Secretary to bear in mind the fact that tremendous frustration exists. There is serious frustration in Northern Ireland, where hundreds of millions of pounds'-worth of tax due to the Exchequer is not even being collected, because of the fraudulent operations that go on there. Will the Home Secretary give some assurance today to those who have made representations to Government that the Government are listening?
Mr. Straw: The Government are listening. I spelled out in my statement many of the meetings that Ministers across Government have held with representative organisations. Of course, my right hon. Friends the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland have taken particular account of the points that the hon. Gentleman makes about cross-border smuggling, not only of petrol, but of other material.

851
The hon. Gentleman will understand that, yes, we are listening carefully, but in the end, because no Government could properly accept all the demands made on them without bankrupting the country, there will have to be choices, which the Government present to Parliament and on which Parliament will have to make its own decisions.
Mr. Shaun Woodward: Has my right hon. Friend had a chance to see a website called www.fuel-protest.com? If he has, he will have noticed links to the Countryside Alliance, the British National party, the UK Independence party, the Hauliers and Farmers Alliance, the Road Haulage Association and others. He will also have noticed that on the website, which is claimed to be the legitimate voice of the fuel protesters, it is stated:
This may look like a "mere" fuel protest, but it's really about who rules Britain…Whatever your reason for opposing Blair, this is your chance to join the people like you doing something about it.
Does my right hon. Friend think that the internet is being misused, and that, in the light of the content, which is racist and attacks asylum seekers—those genuinely seeking immigration into Britain—much of the fuel protest is being hijacked by extremist and right-wing groups?
Mr. Straw: I have indeed seen the printout of that internet site. I do not for a moment suggest that a majority of those who were involved in the protests in September share the views shown on the site; perhaps a very small minority do. What is on that site is revolting. As my hon. Friend says, it is straightforwardly racist in its tone. To some extent, we must all be concerned about the company that we keep.
Mr. Graham Brady: The Home Secretary rightly spoke about the damage that would be done to business and industry by a protracted period of fuel protest. Does he also acknowledge that if the Government persist in having the highest fuel taxes in Europe, the life will be squeezed progressively out of British businesses, especially small businesses, and the Government's policy will do enormous damage to business, as it is doing to the budgets of ordinary families who have to pay such high fuel taxes?
Mr. Straw: If the hon. Gentleman wants a debate about relative tax burdens between the United Kingdom and Europe, he cannot isolate fuel prices, even for the haulage industry. He must look at the tax burden as a whole. Thanks to the magnificent way in which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has managed the economy, we now have employment at its highest level, inflation at the lowest level in Europe, and one of the lowest tax burdens of any country in Europe. A few weeks ago The Sunday Times stated that whereas our tax burden was about 37 per cent., that of Europe as a whole was about 44 or 45 per cent.
Helen Jones: Does my right hon. Friend agree that fuel protesters' claims to be protecting emergency services rang very hollow when essential supplies did not get through to hospitals? My local hospital told me that it would have begun to run out of essential supplies within a few days.
852
Will my right hon. Friend join me in condemning the moral equivocation of the Opposition, who seem content to put the care of sick people at risk, and will he assure me that essential supplies will be protected in the event of further protests?
Mr. Straw: Yes—and those claims did ring hollow, because the protesters set themselves up to arbitrate on what was and was not an emergency service without understanding that, in a modern society, people who do not carry a card saying "I work for an emergency service" may nevertheless have an essential part to play in such services.
Mr. Norman Baker: I welcome the Home Secretary's statement, but will he assure me that the body he chairs will give proper weight to environmental considerations? The statement did not mention the word "environment". Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, while hon. Members have ranted about the need for lower fuel prices in recent weeks, my constituents have been dealing with unprecedented floods whose severity has undoubtedly been caused by global warming to which vehicle emissions have contributed?
Mr. Straw: The hon. Gentleman referred to the civil contingency arrangements body which I chair. Although my responsibilities as Home Secretary are wide, I am happy to say that they do not include direct responsibility to the House for either tax policy or environment policy.
Of course we understand that many communities, not least those in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, have been severely affected by flooding in recent days and weeks. My right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister take that very seriously. Yesterday I attended a meeting, led by the Deputy Prime Minister, with all the local authority associations. Among other things, we discussed how we could better help areas such as that represented by the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Gordon Prentice: Why can we not designate fuel an essential commodity like gas, electricity and water, and place a legal obligation on oil companies to ensure continuity of supply?
Mr. Straw: As my hon. Friend may know, discussions have taken place in the taskforce about whether the legal framework in which oil companies operate should be changed. It has not been possible to reach conclusions in the short time that we have had so far, but when conclusions are reached they will be reported to the House.
As for a change in the law, our problem was not a breach of obligation on the part of oil companies but a breach of civil duty—civic duty—on the part of the protesters, who went beyond the bounds of peaceful protest and sought to stop the delivery of essential supplies. In some areas, they succeeded.
Electricity, gas and water are delivered without the use of road transport, whereas about 60 per cent. of oil supplies depend on road transport at the last point of delivery.

Business of the House
1.33 pm
The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I will announce the business for next week.
MONDAY 6 NOVEMBER—Opposition Day [19th Allotted Day].
Until about 7 o'clock, there will be a debate on pensioners followed by a debate on privatisation. Both motions will arise in the name of the Liberal Democrats.
TUESDAY 7 NOVEMBER—Motions relating to the modernisation of the House of Commons.
WEDNESDAY 8 NOVEMBER—Remaining stages of the Trustee Bill [Lords].
There will be a debate on the ninth report from the Trade and Industry Committee on proposed public-private partnership for BNFL. The debate will arise on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
THURSDAY 9 NOVEMBERߞDebate on the first report from the Liaison Committee on Shifting the Balance: Select Committees and the Executive on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
FRIDAY 10 NOVEMBER—There will be a debate on sport on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
The provisional business for the following week will include:
MONDAY 13 NOVEMBER—Opposition Day [20th Allotted Day]. There will be a debate on an Opposition motion. Subject to be announced.
Motion on the Energy Act 1976 (Reserve Powers) Order 2000.
I should also like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall for the remainder of November will be:
THURSDAY 9 NOVEMBER—Debate on electronic conveyancing.
THURSDAY 16 NOVEMBERߞDebate on fishing safety.
THURSDAY 23 NOVEMBER—Debate on a Select Committee Report. Subject to be announced.
THURSDAY 30 NOVEMBER—Debate on a Government topic. Subject to be announced.
Mrs. Angela Browning: I thank the Leader of the House for announcing the forthcoming business. Why has she tabled a guillotine motion on today's Order Paper for Tuesday's business? The motion will require the House to conclude its deliberations at 8 pm. As we have heard, that business is important to hon. Members and to those who take an interest in our constitutional proceedings. It seeks to require us, after the Queen's Speech, to curtail most of the votes that take place after 10 pm, which will be rounded up into one vote on a Wednesday. It also seeks to limit the time that we will be able to spend in future on debating Government legislation.
Why will such an important debate be curtailed at 8 pm? Does it have anything to do with the interesting and attractive invitations that many hon. Members have received to party next Tuesday night away as the American election results come in? Will the debate be curtailed to allow Labour Members to stomp at the Savoy
854
instead of carrying out their duties to the House and the people whom they represent? Given that the motion stands in the right hon. Lady's name, I would be grateful if she would carefully consider changing her mind. Conservative Members want to scrutinise and debate such an important matter fully.
On Thursday we shall debate the Liaison Committee's report on Select Committees. The right hon. Lady said on a previous occasion that there would be a free vote on the matter, yet the House is to be denied a vote altogether. Despite representations, the debate is on a motion for the Adjournment of the House. I ask for the debate to be on a substantive motion so that all hon. Members can express their views in the Lobby.
Will the right hon. Lady also consider allowing time for debates on two subjects about which hon. Members from all parties are concerned? The first is the position of the fire and rescue services around the country as a result of the radio spectrum auction which the Government have proposed. It will require them to change at great expense the systems that they currently use for radio communications. Arrangements have already been made for police forces around the country. The matter is now urgent because fire and rescue services have been given no suggestion about how they are expected to fund the considerable increase in costs that the auction will impose on them.
Notwithstanding the ten-minute Bill that was discussed this week, there are many letters about stem cell cloning in hon. Members' postbags. Will the right hon. Lady find time for a fuller debate on that important subject?
Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Lady first asked about the arrangements for the debate on Tuesday. Let me correct her, if I may. We have not tabled a guillotine motion, but a business motion, which is commonly tabled. Its timing will allow more than half a day for debate. [Interruption.] From the noises off, I can tell that Opposition Members do not often attend such debates. It is more time than we spent debating the parliamentary calendar and as much time as we spent debating whether we should set up the experiment in Westminster Hall. There is therefore nothing unprecedented about the time allowed for the debate.
Secondly, the hon. Lady asked me why the decision was taken. We anticipate that there may be a number of debates. She may be aware that one of her right hon. Friends has already tabled some 10 amendments, at least some of which he may wish to press to a vote. The hon. Lady suggested that it was because Labour Members might want to party the night away. Such remarks are most unwise. The last occasion on which I recall the House being kept up disruptively for a considerable time was when Conservative Members wanted to attend a dinner and the debate was prolonged until they came back. so it is always wise to be cautious about raising these parallels. Half a day for debating such an issue is perfectly normal and absolutely in line with all the precedents. We have made time in the hope that we can dispose of the business as expeditiously as is perfectly normal and efficient.
Thirdly, the hon. Lady asked me about the business on the Liaison Committee. Again, there is a precedent. If we look at debates on the Procedure Committee report, for example, as far back as 1990, 1994 and 1996—all under the previous Government—the precedent is for such matters to be discussed on a motion for the Adjournment.

855
The hon. Lady asked whether there would be a free vote. I am always extremely careful about what I say about that, and I can tell the hon. Lady precisely what I said on every occasion when the matter was raised. All votes on House matters are free votes. That is what I said and those are the facts. I am astonished that the hon. Lady is in any doubt about that and that she and her right hon. and hon. Friends keep asking me about it every time we have a business statement.
The hon. Lady also asked about fire and rescue services. I shall undertake to make some inquiries for her. My recollection is that the matter was much debated when the spectrum option was being discussed and when the legislation was being prepared, but I will of course draw her remarks to the attention of my relevant right hon. and hon. Friends in case they have anything to add. I also take on board her request for discussions about stem cell cloning. We shall certainly bear it in mind and perhaps discuss it through the usual channels.
Angela Smith: As we move towards the anniversary of the gunpowder plot on 5 November, it may not surprise hon. Members that many people will be celebrating this weekend. May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to early-day motion 1088:
[That this House calls for a ban on the sale of fireworks to the general public.]
At the moment, it does not have many signatures. It may be that hon. Members do not agree with the motion tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle), but there is a great deal of concern among our constituents about the nuisance, disruption and injuries caused largely because of the sale of ordinary fireworks to the public. Is it not time to reconsider the option of restricting the sale of fireworks, as many of our constituents are being disturbed and troubled by the illegal use of fireworks?
Mrs. Beckett: I understand the point that my hon. Friend is making. There is concern if fireworks are used disruptively, and public safety is always a worry at this time of year. Although of course I share my hon. Friend's sympathy and concern for those who find these things distressing or who are in any way injured, the Government have again looked carefully at a review that was carried out by the previous Government about the possibility of banning the sale of fireworks to the general public. There remains concern that were we to do so, a black market in these goods might develop, or it might lead to some people producing home-made devices, and that would be even worse. We keep the matter under review, but I cannot undertake to act as my hon. Friend wishes at present.
Mr. Paul Tyler: Is the Leader of the House aware of the considerable difficulties that some hon. Members had in reaching the House on Monday? Will she consider carefully what steps are in her power to take, in consultation with you, Mr. Speaker, should the same happen next Monday? To illustrate that, let me draw her attention to the fact that at one stage on Monday my only route to the House appeared to be to fly to London City airport via Jersey, with no guarantee that the second half of the journey would take place. [HON. MEMBERS: "Ah!"] I managed to make it here.
856
The Leader of the House will be aware that similar problems involving public transport in general could arise if the statement that the Home Secretary has just given is repeated in future as the result of another fuel blockade? In such circumstances, attendance in the House will be unrepresentative, as it will consist of Members whose constituencies are close to the House, such as London Members. In those circumstances, what powers are available to the Leader of the House, in consultation with you, Mr. Speaker, to change the business of the House at short notice?
Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, and I am aware that many colleagues experienced difficulties, although, as he will have observed, many overcame those difficulties. The hon. Gentleman did not put it like this, but I understand that, had he travelled via Jersey, he might have been tempted not to complete the second half of his journey.
Any Government keep those matters under review because, in any winter, there are times when there are problems for Members. Of course, the matter is significantly one for Mr. Speaker, as well as the Government when dealing with the business. We shall keep these matters under review, but the hon. Gentleman will accept that, after last week's experience, Members will be mindful of the need to make satisfactory arrangements to try to attend the House.
Mr. John Smith: Mr. Speaker, I take this first opportunity to extend to you and your family my warmest congratulations on your much deserved elevation to the Chair.
I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the case of a 10-year-old constituent of mine, young Owen Roberts of Gibbonsdown in Barry in the Vale of Glamorgan, who broke his arm very badly eight weeks ago. His mum was unable to get medical attention or to get him to hospital for nearly 24 hours as a direct result of the actions of the so-called fuel protesters. In the light of evidence to the Select Committee on Trade and Industry about the high level of threats and intimidation, will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate in the House to assess accurately the effects of the protest?
Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend makes an important point about the difficulties that many members of the public experienced, and I trust that the whole House is sorry to hear of the pain and difficulty experienced by a young constituent and the undoubted distress felt by any parent in those circumstances.
My hon. Friend makes a powerful point about the effect of the disruption on people's lives. No matter how hard those engaged in such disruption try to minimise the effects on, for example, essential services, there will always be difficulties that cannot be overcome. I recognise that there were few arrests, as Opposition Members pointed out. It is generally held that much of the action that is now being described took place out of sight of the police, but I hope that even Opposition Members will not challenge the accuracy of statements being made, not by the Government but by oil companies and tanker drivers about the problems that they experienced. I hope that no one in the House supports such action.

857
I fear that I must tell my hon. Friend that I cannot find time for a special debate on the matter, but I am confident that it will continue to be aired here.
Mr. Eric Forth: May we have an urgent debate on Monday entitled "The Suffocation of the House of Commons" so that we can highlight the arrogance of the Government and, I regret to say, the Leader of the House in seeking to cut short the debate on the curtailment of debates in the House of Commons in perpetuity? That would also allow us to highlight the fact that the Liaison Committee's report to the Government and the House, which recommends proper accountability of Government, is being hidden away. Indeed, the Government will not even allow it to be voted on.
Those are serious matters and must not be allowed to slip by without the House being given a proper opportunity to discuss in a full day's debate without time limit the fact that we are about to end all possibilities in the House for proper Government accountability and opposition.
Mrs. Beckett: I see no point in having an urgent debate on Monday about something that will be debated on Tuesday. As for the notion that, in some way, it is improper to discuss whether we should programme our business better, I remind the right hon. Gentleman that there are those on his Benches who have long advocated such moves; that the matter was raised in the Jopling report; that that was also supported in the House; and that, only this week, the Hansard Society has published a report making a number of recommendations, of which the first is that all parliamentary business should be timetabled in precisely the way that the Modernisation Committee has proposed. The right hon. Gentleman is perfectly entitled to say that he believes that all those who advocate that view are wrong, but he cannot, in those circumstances, be correct in saying that it is a unique example of the arrogance of the Government and the Government alone.
The right hon. Gentleman raises the issue of the Liaison Committee report. Again, that is not being hidden away. It is being debated in accordance with precedent on a motion for the Adjournment. As for whether it will be voted on, Members can vote on a motion for the Adjournment if they choose, and do so from time to time.
Much has been said about the issue of a free vote. On any House matter, there are free votes on the Labour side. It is not clear from what the Leader of the Opposition said about the Liaison Committee report whether there is any intention to have a free vote on that on the Conservative side.
To finish on the right hon. Gentleman's first point, he asks why we do not have a debate on the suffocation of the House of Commons. I concede that no one is better fitted to lead it than him.
Mr. Harry Barnes: The Leader of the House will be aware that there was a half-hour debate yesterday in Westminster Hall on Saint-Gobain' s takeover and proposed closure of Biwaters, which would lead to 700 jobs being lost in the constituency that I represent. She might not be aware that that debate left many questions unanswered and many other issues in dispute.
858
May we have a wider debate to allow us to discuss the powers of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry under the Fair Trading Act 1973 to refer mergers to the Competition Commission, and to discuss what is considered to be a material fact in that case? We were informed that it was not a material fact that there were proposals to close Biwaters. That seems to a number of us to be incorrect and should be considered by the House. There is an important matter to pursue.
I raised the issue last week and the Leader of the House said that she would have a word with the Prime Minister about the petition that was sent by my constituents to Downing street. I wonder whether anything followed from that.
Mrs. Beckett: To take up my hon. Friend's last point, of course that was drawn to the attention of the relevant authorities. I fear that I have not come armed with the answer. To return to his first and later points, I know that he has on a number of occasions raised the problems being experienced at Biwaters by his constituents and pursued them assiduously through all the channels open to him. He now makes a different, although equally legitimate, point about the role and powers of the Secretary of State. It is an issue that could be separately explored. Again, my hon. Friend might like to use the opportunities that he has already used in raising the specific issue of Biwaters and the problems that have arisen there. However, I fear that I cannot undertake to find time for a special debate in the House on the subject in the near future.
Mr. David Heath: Can the Leader of the House find time for an early debate on preliminary views on the Phillips report, given that the criticisms in that report are more trenchant than the rather cosy exchanges last week might lead the outside world to believe? Furthermore, will she ensure that there is sufficient time when the Freedom of Information Bill returns to the House for a Government amendment to extend the scope of the Bill to scientific advice provided to Ministers—an amendment that the Government have so far resisted in both Houses?
Mrs. Beckett: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point. Again, it is open to hon. Members to seek to pursue opportunities to secure their own debates on those matters, but I can only confirm what my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food said last week: it is the Government's intention to have a debate on those matters, but we feel that it would be better for the House if that took place when the Government were in a position to highlight their initial response to the report. I understand the anxiety to have earlier debates, but, considering it is a 16-volume report and my right hon. Friend urged people to study the whole report, the Government would be reluctant to stage a much earlier debate, although, as I say, it is open to the hon. Gentleman and to his colleagues to pursue the matter.
As for the issue of the Freedom of Information Bill, no doubt that matter, too, will be raised when the Bill returns to the House, but I can only repeat that the Government have striven to get a sound and workable balance between

859
putting as much information as possible into the public domain, and not jeopardising the proper and sensible operation of government.
Mr. David Drew: I thank my right hon. Friend for finding time next Wednesday for a debate on BNFL as it relates to the report from the Select Committee on Trade and Industry. However, would she consider that if the debate had taken place this Monday, we could have debated the urban and rural White Papers from the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions? Can she find time—probably, after the announcement of the urban and rural White Papers—for a full debate on those important matters?
Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend makes an important point. Those matters are not yet before us, but I shall certainly bear his remarks in mind.
Dr. Julian Lewis: Will the right hon. Lady find time for the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to make a statement on last night's Herbert Morrison lecture, which he gave and in which he said that Labour had exaggerated what was possible in its first term of government and that one of the key lessons of that first term was
the need not to over-claim…?
He also said that members of the Government were
all a bit guilty of letting some of our sense of the possible get out of sync with the pace of change on the ground.
There are hon. Members on both sides of the House who would feel that, in the case of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, that is an example of confession being good for the soul.
Mrs. Beckett: I have heard only brief reports of the speech to which the hon. Gentleman refers. I am not clear to what extent my right hon. Friend is being quoted directly and to what extent a spin is being put on what he said.
Mr. Vernon Coaker: Can my right hon. Friend find time for the important debate that the House needs to hold on global warming? We have seen some of the consequences of global warming lately—the recent floods. There have been many examples, both in this country and abroad, of changes in weather patterns, which are disastrous for many people. We need to debate global warming to find out what the Government—and, indeed, the British people—can do to try to tackle that ever increasing problem.
Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend makes an important point. In recent days and weeks, it has become increasingly clear that we are experiencing some of the more severe weather that people have long predicted. My hon. friend will know that investment in flood defences has increased—by a further £30 million for capital schemes in the spending review this year. The investment will now be some £267 million over the next three years. I believe that he has experienced problems in Arnold in
860
his own area. I hope that the resources that are being made available will be of assistance, but he will know that those problems will take some time to overcome.
Mr. Edward Leigh: If it is true that, on Tuesday, many hon. Members will be enjoying themselves following the American presidential and congressional elections, could it be that those elections actually mean something precisely because the Select Committees in Congress are so powerful? Will the right hon. Lady therefore accept that Thursday's debate on our Select Committees is vital? I know that she wants to help the House, but can she make it clear that we shall have an Adjournment debate in which Members can express their general opinions, after which there will be substantive motions amendable with a full free vote so that all Members can exercise their conscience? That is an important issue, and I know that she will want to help the House.
Mrs. Beckett: There are substantial differences between the Committees in the American Senate and Congress and those that exist here, but the hon. Gentleman will have noticed that that does not necessarily lead to greater voter interest and identification, because the turnout at elections in America is substantially worse than in this country. I do not draw a logical connection between the two matters; I simply make the point that his case is not necessarily made by what he says.
The hon. Gentleman requests a debate on the matter because it is so vital. I agree that it is vital and very much hope that all Members who take part in Thursday's debate will have read the report and that they will have given serious thought to its recommendations. I do not dismiss the report lightly; it is very serious indeed. If it were to be brought into effect, it would have profound implications and profound consequences for the House, not least for the standing and role of individual Members.
I was saddened to see the Leader of the Opposition appear to respond in a knee-jerk manner to something that he hopes the Government would dislike. The report has grave implications for the House, Ministers and Back Benchers alike, regardless of who is in government. It is also a matter on which I know that there were strong opposing views among Opposition Members. I hope that we will not see those views stifled.
Mr. Mike Gapes: I congratulate you, Mr. Speaker, on your election. This is my first opportunity to do so.
Could we have another—but full—debate on the situation in the middle east? Although there was a debate on it last week in Westminster Hall, events are moving very fast. In the light of the very welcome agreement between Nobel prize-winner Peres and Nobel prizewinner Arafat; of signs that it may be possible to get back on the path of negotiations, which would be very welcome; and of the concerns expressed to me by many of my constituents who are worried about a spillover into this country of conflict in the region, could we have an early debate to reaffirm our support for peace, negotiation, dialogue, compromise and the overall Oslo process?
Mrs. Beckett: I fear that I cannot offer an early debate on the issue, although I accept—I think that the

861
whole House accepts—its importance and timeliness. Fortunately, however, we have Foreign Office questions on Tuesday, and my hon. Friend may find an opportunity to raise the issue then.
Mr. Christopher Chope: When can we have a debate on the growing crisis in medical general practice? In Dorset, and particularly in my constituency, general practitioners are finding that they are not allowed to exercise their clinical freedom to prescribe the drugs that they think are best for their patients because their budgets are subject to rationing. Additionally, primary care groups are taking unlawful sanctions against general practitioners, depriving them of their staff budget, if they do not reduce the service that they provide to patients. The situation is desperate. People who are entitled to receive the medicines that their doctors think are best for them are being deprived of those medicines because of the Government's budgetary constraints—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that the House has got the point.
Mrs. Beckett: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman has exposed the flaw in his argument by his own remarks. The budgetary constraints being experienced in the health service under this Government, are nothing compared with those that were experienced under the previous Government, and, indeed, they are being substantially improved. As for the constraints issue itself, I think we all understand that there are genuine difficulties in striking a good balance between the most efficient use of moneys, particularly in prescribing, and the required level of clinical freedom. For those who were not fundholders, the level of clinical freedom that the hon. Gentleman describes did not exist under the Government whom he supported.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn:I was very disappointed by the reply that the Leader of the House gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes) on his request for a debate on the middle east crisis, because it is a desperately serious situation. On Monday, on television, the Israeli Foreign Minister said that he supported the concept of an independent Palestinian state. Meanwhile, however, he was unable to say why Israeli forces were continuing to occupy the Palestinian areas and to fire on protesters, including large numbers of unarmed young civilians.
The situation has enormous implications for events in the middle east as a whole, and there is a danger of other nations becoming involved in it. Obviously, we all hope that the Oslo peace process is resumed and gets back on track, and that we end up with a ceasefire and—I hope—an independent Palestinian state existing alongside the state of Israel. However, does not my right hon. Friend
862
think that we could do a bit more than simply raise the issue at Foreign Office questions next week, and have a full and serious debate on the crisis?
Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend makes a series of important points. As he said on the issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes), there is no doubt that it is a difficult situation, and that the whole House hopes that recent developments signal an easing of the difficulties. However, although he is right to identify that there is a difference between having a debate in the House and Foreign Office questions, the latter will provide an opportunity for the issue to be raised and aired. I also recommend to him the extra opportunities for debate in Westminster Hall, where I understand that there have been a number of more specific but also very well-attended and very good foreign affairs debates.
Mr. Stephen Day: Does the Leader of the House understand the anger that is generated when she announces business that will mean the most revolutionary changes in the procedures of the House, certainly in my lifetime, and then tells us that she will decide how long we can debate those changes? Surely the debate should continue until everyone who wants to speak has spoken. Anything less is an abuse of the rights and privileges to speak on such matters bestowed on Members of Parliament by our constituents. Will she reconsider her position, because I do not think that she would wish to be guilty of such an abuse?
Mrs. Beckett: Of course I sympathise with the concern expressed by Opposition Members, but the notion that these are the most revolutionary changes that have taken place in the hon. Gentleman's lifetime makes me doubt whether he has been paying attention these past 20 years.
Mr. John Cryer: My right hon. Friend will be aware that the Ministry of Defence is conducting an inquiry into the possibility of making ex gratia payments to the former far east prisoners of war. Can we have a debate on the issue on the Floor of the House? There are only about 7,500 of those ex-POWs left now. They are men who endured the most brutal treatment at the hands of their Japanese captors. Is it not about time that we put right what the Tories neglected for 18 years? They never cared about the POWs, the pensioners or all the people who sacrificed so much in the defeat of fascism. It is about time to put matters right, have a debate and get the payments made.
Mrs. Beckett: I understand and sympathise with my hon. Friend's wish to remind the House of what he properly describes—no one in the House would dissent—as the terrible suffering experienced by those to whose war record he refers. I fear, however, that I cannot find time for a special debate on that matter, especially as at present we have had and are having a number of defence debates.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. We must move on. I will take note of those who were patient and did not get called.

Points of Order
2.7 pm
Mr. James Plaskitt: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In exchanges at Prime Minister's Question Time yesterday, the Leader of the Opposition cited what he described as new figures in relation to the share of national income taken in tax. It has come to light today that they are not new figures. In fact, they are very old figures and do not even take account of the 1 p reduction in income tax, the 10p rate of income tax or the working families tax credit. Have you had a request from the right hon. Gentleman to make a statement withdrawing what he said yesterday?
Mr. Speaker: These are matters for debate. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can take them up with the Leader of the Opposition.
Mr. Ian Bruce: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Are we sure it is a point of order?
Mr. Bruce: Yes.
I do not know whether you have yet had a chance to read the 17th report of the Standards and Privileges Committee, dealing with declarations of interest during debates in the House. You will know that the Commissioner upholds what we all understand to be the rule. The Committee seems to discount the fact that we have a rule whereby if there is any likelihood of an interest being involved in a speech, hon. Members should declare it at the beginning. Will you please study the rules and the report and advise the House on how you think that hon. Members should deal with this matter? The report directly criticises the Chairman of the Committee, who is effectively saying, "Well, the rules don't apply to me and perhaps not to anyone else in the House."
Mr. Speaker: The rules and the report are a matter for the House. It is a matter for the right hon. Gentleman how he conducts himself.
Mr. Graham Brady: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Earlier this week, there were some scandalous revelations about the state of
864
affairs at the mortuary at Trafford general hospital, which serves my constituents. The state of the mortuary is a disgrace, the likelihood of infection being spread is apparently great, and so far there has been no sign of anything being done. I communicated with the Secretary of State for Health on Tuesday, to ask him to make an urgent statement on the matter. Has he indicated his desire to make such a statement and reassure people who are concerned about the state of the mortuary?
Mr. Speaker: The Secretary of State has not contacted me.
Mr. Malcolm Savidge: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. With regard to the earlier point of order about the Chairman of the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), I understood that it was part of the traditions of the House that a Member who intended to make an attack on another Member would inform that person first.
Mr. Ian Bruce: He has.
Mr. Savidge: Thank you.
Mr. Owen Paterson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I fully appreciate that you said you had noted those hon. Members who did not get called during business questions, but I wish to repeat the point that I raised last week—that junior Members of Parliament have only once chance every week to ask questions that are of crucial interest to constituents. I know that you have had a lot to think about in the past two weeks, but would it be possible for you to plan to allow a little more time for business questions?
Mr. Speaker: It is possible that I could allow more time for business questions, but the hon. Gentleman must understand that he was called to intervene during the preceding statement by the Home Secretary, and he spoke for too long. That delayed the Leader of the House getting to her feet, so the fault lies with the hon. Gentleman.

Ordered,
That Mrs. Sylvia Heal be First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.—[Mrs. Beckett.]

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.]
Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [1 November], That the House do now adjourn.
Question again proposed.
2.11 pm
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mr. John Spellar): May I begin by expressing my pleasure at the elevation of my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen and Rowley Regis (Mrs. Heal) to the post of First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means? My only regret is that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence will thereby lose a first-class Parliamentary Private Secretary.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State opened the debate yesterday by running through some of the main activities in which our armed forces have recently been involved. Our armed forces have proved time and again why they are the envy of the world. Before I speak about some detailed matters in that regard, I want to turn to the role of defence in the community.
The presence of the Ministry of Defence and our armed forces at the heart of the community is often felt most keenly when they are on hand to help when things go wrong. The armed forces have been much in evidence in the last few days, helping the civil authorities to deal with the consequences of floods and storms. We have provided personnel and vehicles to assist in Gloucestershire, Wiltshire, Worcestershire, Shropshire, Kent and Somerset. We have also provided specialist teams to deal with chemical leaks, and helicopters to carry out reconnaissance flights. We did much the same when flooding hit Kent and Sussex last month.
The Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force provide search and rescue services around our coasts 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, and rescued 1,189 people last year 1999. Our bomb disposal experts received 495 call-outs last year, and the armed forces were on standby to ensure that essential services did not break down during the recent fuel crisis.
Hon. Members know from the answer that I gave in the Chamber on 30 October that the Ministry of Defence is fully engaged in the fuel task force's efforts to ensure that the effects of any future disruption to fuel supplies are minimised. As before, that includes being prepared to help distribute fuel, as directed by the civil authorities, to help keep the country going. The House has already had the opportunity to hear the statement from my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.
866
However, we do not want people in Britain to see members of the armed forces only in emergencies. We want them to meet our service men and women, and we hope that they will therefore learn a bit about the vital work that they do all over the world. During the summer months the Royal Navy carried out the "Meet Your Navy" deployment around Britain. This was a highly successful programme of visits to ports and harbours around the country, as part of the national millennium celebrations.
In all, 26 naval units were involved, including a submarine and a royal fleet auxiliary. They were visited by 58,000 members of the public. Highlights included the first port visit by an aircraft carrier to Bristol for many years, and the deployment of a Royal Navy patrol craft to Wisbech in Cambridgeshire—the furthest inland that a commissioned vessel has been in recent times.
Before I move on to the Government's policies for people and for logistics, I want to comment on the anti-European obsession displayed by Opposition Members in yesterday's debate. The Opposition are well known for their visceral fear of all things European. Their dogma on Europe means that they reject co-operation in Europe, even when that would be in the national interest.
Mr. Robert Key: Rubbish.
Mr. Spellar: The hon. Gentleman says, "Rubbish," but we know that he and the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) have relatively progressive views on Europe. That must make for very interesting meetings among the Opposition defence team.
In view of those obsessions, we should not be surprised that they also surface in defence matters. It might be possible to overlook the view of Lord Tebbit, expressed in the Mail on Sunday, that we should buy "tried and tested" United States aircraft instead of the "expensive" and "already obsolescent" Eurofighter, but that view is also the policy of Conservative Front Bench Members.
Lord Tebbit's successor in the Chingford constituency, the hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith), told the House last Thursday that
multi-nation collaborative programmes remain a serious problem…European procurement strategies…run the risk of creating a fortress Europe and alienating others in the NATO alliance.
The hon. Gentleman also said:
Often…the best happens to be the USA.
That will be news to the hundreds of thousands of workers employed in our defence industry. The hon. Gentleman was not shy about telling the House which national collaborative programme was in his sights. He said:
I have some serious concerns about the A400MߪI had some deep concerns when he—
the Secretary of State—
announced it…To be fair to all those concerned…we should tell them whether we are certain that the project can seriously go ahead.—[Official Report, 26 October 2000; Vol. 355, c. 439–441.]
The hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green may not be aware that the A400M will create 3,400 long-term, skilled jobs in the UK, primarily at Filton, Broughton and Prestwick. If indirect employment is included, that figure could rise to more than 10,000 jobs. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will take this opportunity to give those involved in the A400M a categorical

867
assurance: would a Conservative Government match this Government's commitment to the A400M programme, yes or no?
Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: The Minister is talking rubbish. I asked whether the Government would go ahead with the project regardless of its cost or of the problems associated with it. The Minister cannot get away with putting other questions in my mouth. He should answer the questions: is there a problem with the A400M project? If so, will the Government go ahead with it regardless?
Mr. Spellar: The project is moving well, and we are in very useful discussions with our partners. We very much welcome the project.
Mr. Donald Anderson: Would not adopting a policy of "US is always best" be a stab in the back for UK manufacturers who, for example, are trying to sell Grippen aircraft in central and east Europe, against stiff US competition?
Mr. Spellar: My hon. Friend is right, and those manufacturers are facing some very rough tactics from that competition.
Why are hon. Members who represent Chingford so dismissive of our successful aircraft industry? The Eurofighter and A400M projects may not matter in Chingford, but they do elsewhere—in Bristol and Derby, in Yorkshire, in Scotland and in Wales. They matter too in the north-west of England, and especially in Preston. The attitude of Opposition Front-Bench Members will be noted very carefully by those who work in the industry.
Mr. Quentin Davies: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Spellar: No. I now want to speak about what the Government have done to improve logistics support. The hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green last week acknowledged the real progress being made in that regard. That is crucial to our forces' ability to fight and win. Training and equipping our forces, and getting them to a crisis, is not enough: we need to be able to supply and sustain them, and to do so as cost-effectively as possible.
The Defence Logistics Organisation has been up and running since April 1999, when the three single service logistics organisations were successfully merged under chief of defence logistics General Sir Sam Cowan. I am grateful to the tribute that the hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green paid to the chief of defence logistics last week. The DLO provides logistic support across the board—involving everything from guided missiles to ration packs—and spends nearly £5 billion a year.
Bringing together logistics functions under the DLO provides an opportunity to capitalise on economies of scale and to conduct a much wider rationalisation than could ever have been possible under three separate logistics organisations. This allows us to release more resources for investment in front-line capability.
The DLO's strategic goal is to achieve a 20 per cent. reduction in output costs by 2005. To do that, it has established an innovative business change programme.
868
The key benefits of the programme include a smaller, leaner, single defence inventory shared with industry; a reduced number of direct suppliers, consistent with best commercial practice; the maximum application of e-commerce and e-business, and a focus on the reduction of through-life whole support chain costs, rather than buying equipment simply on the basis of the lowest acquisition prices.
The first priority of the DLO remains the provision of logistic support to the armed forces. That has continued uninterrupted throughout the transition to the new organisation and alongside these major business changes. The new arrangements have been tested—and found to work well—in operations in the Balkans, Sierra Leone and elsewhere.
An important element of the strategy for the DLO is a closer relationship with industry. It therefore gives me great pleasure to announce the signature of a partnering agreement between the Defence Aviation Repair Agency and Rolls-Royce plc to provide best practice integrated logistics support for military engines in service with the armed forces. Under the agreement, both partners will work together to achieve a joint optimum balance between capability and capacity. Both sides will have full visibility of all relevant data and the benefits to each partner will be linked to its respective contribution and performance. This is a ground-breaking industrial initiative which I hope can be replicated with other major equipment suppliers.
This is not the only fruit of the new unified approach to logistics. For example, we have created a defence munitions group which has brought all service munitions together into a single operation, eliminating duplication in the inventory and providing the opportunity to reduce overheads. In addition, the rationalisation of the naval bases and supply agency and the ship support agency into a single organisation, to be called the warship support agency, from April next year will deliver cost and operational benefits in the management of support to front-line ships.
We have also set up the defence catering group, which now provides a single focus for food supply. [HON. MEMBERS: "Stew!"] This builds on the excellence that already exists in our armed forces. A joint service team of chefs has just won the European gold medal, and silver overall, in the Culinary Olympics in Germany, beating all other European corners. This is not the first time that the quality of British military cuisine has met with the approval of other nations.
There were some interesting asides from Conservative Members about stew. That is the traditional, old-fashioned view of the provision of catering in the armed forces, but it has changed dramatically. It shows how out of date Conservative Members are. Hon. Members may recall that earlier in the year, when the SFOR headquarters at Banja Luka became multinational, our NATO allies asked if we would continue to do the catering for all countries, to which we happily agreed.
Mr. Gerald Howarth: Will the Minister confirm that those Army caterers were trained in Aldershot?
Mr. Spellar: Not only that, but I suspect that they have probably recently used the excellent sporting facilities that

869
I know the hon. Gentleman has visited, built on time and to price, as an excellent part of smart construction. They are extremely good facilities which are—to answer the hon. Gentleman's question of yesterday—part of our continuing commitment to Aldershot.
Mr. Nigel Evans: Will the Minister also give a commitment to farmers in the Ribble valley and throughout the whole of the United Kingdom that, where possible, the food will be sourced from United Kingdom farmers?
Mr. Spellar: The hon. Gentleman will have seen what we managed to achieve with beef. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will be making a further announcement on meat in his winding-up speech, which I think the hon. Gentleman will find of interest.
The DLO is working on a number of initiatives to revise the principles of supply chain management to generate better ways of working. The aim is a step change in stockholding and repair and maintenance practices which will reduce the volume, value and complexity of the inventory, in turn reducing storage requirements. Greater commercial involvement in support and the increased use of public-private partnerships will improve the delivery and reduce the cost of both logistics and engineering support.
We are also transforming the way we buy the mass of low-value but high-volume items consumed by the armed forces. One example is the Government procurement card which we launched earlier in the year and is now in use at 147 sites. It is effectively a charge card that enables goods and services to be ordered and paid for whenever required, without the need for large amounts of form filling. I have spoken to those on the shop floor who are using it and they find it enormously helpful. It creates greater job satisfaction, because they can get on with the work rather than waiting for parts to come in. They say that it speeds up work, cuts down bureaucracy and reduces turnaround times. That is good for the armed forces on the front line and also for our people in the support chain.
These initiatives are designed to meet the chief of defence logistics' target of 20 per cent. savings on output costs over the next five years, releasing resources for the front line.
From the outset of the strategic defence review, we have acknowledged the need to do more for the men and women who serve in our armed forces and their colleagues. Since taking up office, we have done a great deal to improve the lives of service personnel and their families.
On operational welfare, our levels of operational commitment have been steadily falling in recent months. Some 22 per cent. of the Army is currently committed to operations, compared with 44 per cent. at the height of the Kosovo campaign. We are committed to bringing people home as soon as possible. For example, force levels for operations in Kosovo have reduced from 13,000 last summer to around 3,000 now. It is right that our armed forces should be heavily involved at the height of such operations, given their capabilities and rapid response. It is also right that once the conditions have been created for others to take over some of those tasks, they should do so. The corresponding increase in time
870
between operational deployments that this brings about is welcome. However, we must also recognise the pressures on families during operational deployment.
Mr. John Maples: One area in which our commitment is increasing is Sierra Leone. Back in June, 250 troops were sent there to help with training. The commitment is now more than 1,000 troops and several royal naval vessels. To many people in the House and outside, rampant mission creep seems to be going on in Sierra Leone. While the situation is awful, and we want to support the United Nations, it seems to me and to many others that no discernible British interest could justify United Kingdom military action in Sierra Leone. If the Foreign and Commonwealth Office allows us to be drawn into that, there will be substantial opposition.
Mr. Spellar: The total number involved in the training and the headquarters support is about 400. The hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to the amphibious group that will be going to Sierra Leone to demonstrate the practicality and effectiveness of the rapid response. That will be for a brief period during November. I do not therefore think that the hon. Gentleman should read that as the kind of dramatic increase that he described.
When our troops are involved in operations, that puts pressure on families. That is why, as I have said before, we have increased the telephone allowance, from three to 20 minutes a week so that deployed personnel can better keep in touch with those at home. We have also provided modern facilities for those wishing to keep in touch via the internet including the "electronic bluey" We have provided internet terminals at military bases and families centres around the country, in our overseas garrisons and on many ships, so that as many people as possible can have access to it.
We have introduced Project WELCOME, a new communications system that gives service personnel deployed on operations access to a welfare telephone while away from home. On my visits to various bases, I have seen that this is working and starting to have an impact on the service. These arrangements have already worked well during recent operations in East Timor, Mozambique and Sierra Leone.
We have also introduced guaranteed periods of post-operational tour leave so that personnel can be assured that they will be able to spend time with their families when they return from operations. That is because we value our forces—service men and women alike—who do a great job. I am sure that many will greatly resent the comments of the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) yesterday. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman is not here today. They will resent the hon. Gentleman's slurs about the quality of women in our armed forces. I think that he showed himself in his true colours when he praised the forces for being "old-fashioned". No, they are not old-fashioned; they are traditional. The armed forces support traditional values and are probably one of the best examples in our country of traditional values in a modern setting. Service men and women support traditional values but are very up to date in their thinking, adaptability and flexibility.
Mr. Mike Gapes: Can my hon. Friend confirm that steps are being taken to improve the accommodation facilities in Kuwait for our forces?

871
That was drawn to the attention of the Ministry of Defence by the Select Committee on Defence some months ago. The Ministry of Defence replied that improvements were due to start in November. Can my hon. Friend confirm that those improvements will be made and that our forces in Kuwait will get adequate accommodation in the near future?
Mr. Spellar: Those matters were drawn to our attention by the Select Committee on Defence, and to my attention by members of the armed forces about three weeks ago, when I went to Kuwait. I have also had discussions with the Kuwaiti Government, and I understand that the contracts should be signed shortly, which we and they will welcome.
Dr. Julian Lewis: The Minister may not be aware that my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) is not here today because he had a long-standing constituency engagement, which was arranged long before this debate was scheduled; that is why he spoke yesterday.
My recollection is that my hon. Friend's remarks were to the effect that there were certain key military tasks that women, because of their lighter physique and lesser physical strength, could not undertake successfully. That was recognised by the Equal Opportunities Commission when it gave evidence to the Defence Committee a few days ago.
Mr. Spellar: Practical reasons are precisely why the Army is undertaking a full study of that issue, on which it will report next year. It will evaluate the matter properly, unlike the hon. Member for Blaby, from whom we heard the standard blimpish prejudice, which does our debate no good. The hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) rightly said that there should be a proper evaluation and assessment of military effectiveness. That is why a proper study is being undertaken. We do not need knee-jerk reactions. They may go down well in saloon bars but they are not appropriate in the House.
We should consider both the forces who are deployed and their families who remain at home. That is why we set up the service families taskforce and encourage families federations for the various services. The hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) discussed the Navy yesterday. It is true that for a while the Navy did not have a families federation, but we were delighted to support the creation of that body, which provides a channel of communication.
Mr. Colin Breed: Several of my constituents are the families of the men who serve on HMS Tireless, which is in Gibraltar. There is a feeling that that vessel may be there until next spring. However, little information is reaching the families, who need to know exactly what is going on so that they can make plans for the future. I hope that the information will be disseminated.
Mr. Spellar: It has been said several times from this Dispatch Box that we must assess the final requirement for repairs, and the time scale that that will entail. We are awaiting a report from our engineering experts in order to
872
undertake those repairs, and obviously we shall disseminate the information to the forces and their families. I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that matter.
We have sought to recognise the impact of operations and to introduce various innovations aimed at mitigating some of the differences between service and civilian life. We have taken a leading role in cross-departmental liaison in support of our forces and their families, and the taskforce began its work in the autumn of 1998.
During the past couple of years we have achieved some impressive results, including the code of practice on schools admissions, which now makes specific reference to service children. Service children's education is now represented on new local authority admissions forums in most areas where there are large numbers of service children, and local education authorities are directed to be sensitive to the position of service children returning from abroad. I recognise that there are still some difficulties, but the position is considerably better than it was.
The children of members of the armed forces are now exempt from the three-year residency requirement that is normally needed to qualify for student loans. That means that service children will no longer be disadvantaged by the fact that their parents are serving abroad, especially in Germany or Cyprus.
As a result of the problems that were brought to light by the service families taskforce, the national health service established 24 incentive schemes for dentists to take on more NHS patients in areas where there are large numbers of service personnel. We established that service spouses were, through no fault of their own, not meeting the criteria that would allow them to claim the jobseeker's allowance as they moved around the country. Working with the Department for Education and Employment and the Department of Social Security, we produced guidance to overcome the problem.
We are also considering how to help service children with special educational needs, and how to tackle the refusal of credit to service personnel. We believe that it is wrong for the men and women who serve their country with such courage and dedication to be denied services that many of the rest of us take for granted, simply because we require those people, as part of their duty, to move around the country more than the average person would, or to serve overseas.
Mr. Julian Brazier: Although I am no great lover of Labour Defence Ministers, I take this opportunity to congratulate the Minister on the work of the taskforce, which really has made a material difference to the families of members of the services.
Mr. Spellar: I am stuck for a reply; this is totally unprecedented. I merely thank the hon. Gentleman for his generosity.
On training and education, we want to enhance the ability of our personnel in their current work and to improve their ability to seek employment when they leave our service. We are rethinking the ways in which we train and educate our forces. Our learning forces initiative is our contribution to the Government's wider learning age proposals. It will greatly enhance our success with distance learning. Personnel are tapping into the DFEE national network, which involves the learn direct telephone service and online learning advice centres.

873
The Royal Navy has successfully trialled IT-based learning facilities at sea in the aircraft carriers HMS Invincible and HMS Illustrious. The Army has 115 new internet sites in 33 interactive learning centres.
The motivation that lies behind such initiatives is simple. We want to ensure that the men and women in our armed forces are properly trained and have more opportunities to acquire recognised academic and vocational qualifications. We want to get the best out of them and we want them, when they return to civilian work, to have transferable skills and qualifications. The major new learning credits scheme will expand opportunities for service personnel to pursue academic and vocational qualifications.
Better training is crucial to modernising defence. That is why we are engaged in a fundamental and wide-ranging defence training review to provide our armed forces and civilians with a training system that best meets defence needs in the 21st century.
Training is a multi-billion-pound-a-year business. We need to ensure that it is cost-effective, and that training is shared where it is common between the services and between the services and civilians. To achieve that, we are considering a major programme of rationalisation for defence training and the associated estate, to reduce costs and improve output in support of our joint operational needs. That will contribute to the defence estates strategy, which is aimed at reducing the defence estate to the minimum required to support the effective delivery of defence outputs. The training review team is due to report next spring, when we shall present its findings to the House.
In September, we launched our youth initiative, which involves going more broadly into the community. That initiative is now known as the skill force. It involves teams of serving and recently retired services instructors going into six secondary schools in Newcastle and Norfolk to train a maximum of 25 children in each school in new skills. Those young people are not achieving all that they could, and they may even be in danger of dropping out completely. We want to use the expertise of our service trainers to help to get them motivated and qualified, and to develop skills for life.
The main focus will be key skills training. There will be a chance to develop employability skills and to go for the Duke of Edinburgh award scheme and a St. John Ambulance first aid certificate. There is also an opportunity for young people to work towards an ASDAN—the award scheme development and accreditation network—award, which is a vocational qualification that covers several skills-related challenges, including problem solving, working with others and improving one's own learning and performance. We have worked closely with the Home Office and the DFEE to forge partnerships between Departments, the armed forces and the community. That will make a real difference to some people's lives, and I very much look forward to seeing it in action during my visit to Norfolk on 10 November.
Understandably, in this debate we have, as always, mentioned the contribution of our reserve forces and of the wider role of our forces in the community, including the cadet forces. The Reserve Forces Act 1996 took effect more than three and a half years ago. It underpins our policy of making the reserve forces more integrated, relevant and usable. The strategic defence review enabled
874
us to define more clearly what is required of the reserve forces. Their main task has switched from the reinforcement of UK forces engaged in major conflict to supporting regular forces deployed on a much wider range of operations. The reserves are integral to our ability to expand our forces in times of crisis. The more flexible use of reservists also gives us the opportunity to harness skills not readily found within the regular armed forces. It makes sense to use reservists in roles where their particular skills are most useful. For example, 10 per cent. of UK forces currently deployed in the Balkans are reservists, which shows that we are putting that into effect.
More and more people are taking up the opportunity of full-time reserve service. Well over 1,000 individuals are now serving on those terms. The second Hercules into Sierra Leone, when our forces deployed there so successfully in May, had an FTRS pilot. That is a further step towards maximising the flexibility and employability of our reserve forces, and we often learn from the experience of other countries about taking a more flexible approach on such matters.
Mr. Key: I do not seek to be provocative, I merely seek information. Can the Minister confirm that among the 1,000 or so troops being trained to drive tankers, there are no Territorial Army volunteers, only regulars?
Mr. Spellar: Yes. They are all regular forces. I thought that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary had clarified that, but I am pleased to confirm it now.
On the other side of the coin, we recognise that employers of reservists are wholly justified in asking what they get in return. The reserve forces have always provided outstanding management and leadership training, but we want to balance the additional demands on employers with the provision of more meaningful qualifications, as a result of which employers have a loyal and better trained work force. We are making considerable progress on that, enabling our reserve officers and NCOs to gain national certificates and diplomas in management—qualifications which will be recognised in the outside world as well. Employers benefit from that, which balances the demands that supporting employees serving in the reserves places on the workplace.
Mr. Brazier: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way a second time, especially as I do not intend to be as kind on this occasion. Will he confirm that despite the initiatives that he has mentioned, reserve officer recruiting has collapsed, and that of the last three courses at Sandhurst, none filled half its places and the worst filled only about a quarter of its places? Will he also confirm that among the reserves being used, the category most heavily used at the moment continues to be the infantry?
Mr. Spellar: We recognise the considerable pressures in terms of the number of hours, particularly on those who work in management, which is having an effect on the reserve forces. We need to consider both our work and the need for discussions with employers. There is a considerable role for the infantry, a number of whom I met in Kosovo and Bosnia. In addition, there are heavy demands on our specialist reserve forces, particularly, as I have mentioned a number of times in the House,

875
on signals. We must consider the difficulties arising from the number of signallers in the regular forces, as a result of their attractiveness because of the excellent training that we provide, and the explosion in the communications industry, which has led to the industry poaching them from us. We recognise those pressures. We do not say that there are no difficulties, but we are providing more equipment for many of those reserve forces, making them more usable in the sort of operations that the hon. Gentleman described.
The cadet organisations continue to go from strength to strength, providing more than 128,000 young people with opportunities to participate in military, sporting, adventurous and community-based activities, developing their social and personal skills, giving them the opportunity to mix regularly with service personnel and gain an insight into the realities of service life.
In several areas of the country, adult instructors from the Army cadet force have also been involved in a programme under which they provide supervised activities for young people from their local communities who are deemed to be at risk of offending or have committed minor crimes. Exposure to the Army cadet force assists such young people with their personal development. We owe a great deal to the adult instructors involved with the cadet organisations—some 23,000 in all. We have underlined our commitment to their work by investing £3 million of new money in the cadets. That is good value for the armed forces and for the community.
Mr. Evans: We all want to see more young people being attracted into the armed forces, but will the Minister comment on the article in today's Daily Mail under the banner headlines "Navy's symbol of shame" and "Our crumbling defences…the catalogue of calamity". Does the Minister think that when young people read such stories they will be attracted to the British armed forces?
Mr. Spellar: That is an interesting comment. The hon. Gentleman is saying that such smear campaigns, by newspapers such as the Daily Mail, may have an impact on young people and their view of the armed forces. I agree with the hon. Gentleman in his criticism of the outrageous behaviour of the Daily Mail.
Let us deal with the question of the German submarine. Every week, off Plymouth, we conduct naval exercises that are so good that navies from all over Europe and other parts of the world want to participate. I have participated in one myself, as have other hon. Members, including Front-Bench Opposition Members, under the armed forces parliamentary scheme. Those exercises are excellent. As the hon. Gentleman knows, as a result of a decision taken by the previous Conservative Government, we no longer have conventional diesel submarines. I make no complaint about this, but our submarines are configured for a different and much larger role; they are nuclear submarines. Therefore, as part of those exercises, other navies provide submarines, and have been doing so for a considerable time. A figure is worked out for the daily use of the submarine as part of those exercises, and we charge a largely theoretical figure for participation in the exercises and the training that we provide. That has been going on for a considerable time and it works effectively. To suggest that U-boats are guarding Britain,
876
as was portrayed in articles such as the one that the hon. Gentleman mentioned is deplorable. But he is right to say that if people believe that rubbish, they might be deterred. Those who write it should be ashamed of themselves.
Mr. Duncan Smith: I associate the Opposition with the Minister's comments about the cadet force. It is hugely important and we definitely want to see it enhanced and rebuilt, which seems to be a view shared by the Government. The hon. Gentleman referred to the number of reservists serving in Kosovo and Bosnia, but is it not the case that, of those available in the Territorial Army, about one third are available for such postings? If one reduces the global ceiling of the number available, one also reduces the ceiling of those available for such postings. Does not that suggest that the cut of 18,000 was a mistake, and that in all honesty, it is time to review it?
Mr. Spellar: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman did not, in one preliminary sentence, join me in condemning the sort of campaign to which the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) referred. I should have thought that he would deplore such attacks on our armed forces—but he has never said what he would do about the submarines; he simply makes gratuitous comments. There is a need for a balance, but there has been a significant shift in what we require of reserve forces from the traditional role of the reinforcement of UK forces engaged in major conflict on the north German plain and the guarding of strategic facilities in the UK—the cold war configuration. Therefore there has been a reshaping of our reserves towards the specialised arms.
Mr. Brazier: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Spellar: No, we have been round that course a number of times.
I conclude by reminding the House of the huge range of activities that our forces undertake day in and day out. At this moment our armed forces are continuing their valuable work throughout the globe.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State spoke about our forces' efforts on operational deployments in the varied and often challenging environments of Sierra Leone, the Balkans and the Gulf. The armed forces maintain a significant presence in Cyprus, Gibraltar, the Falkland Islands and Brunei. United Kingdom forces are also important contributors to a variety of United Nations operations, helping to build a safer and more secure environment in Georgia, East Timor, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Sierra Leone, on the green line in Cyprus and on the border between Iraq and Kuwait.
We currently have two joint task groups in the Mediterranean, one based around the carrier Invincible and the other including the amphibious ships Fearless and Ocean. In all, we have 21 ships, 34 aircraft and almost 5,000 personnel from all three services with those task groups.
Seventeen ships are at sea in home waters, including four involved in fisheries protection. Two are in the Gulf, five are in the Atlantic and two are in the Caribbean. As ever, we have a Trident submarine on deterrent patrol. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State explained to hon. Members yesterday, those vessels have not been affected by the technical difficulties which are currently

877
under investigation with our strategic submarine nuclear fleet. The Royal Marines are in Northern Ireland, in Kosovo and in the eastern Mediterranean as part of the amphibious group. All our dependent territories have been visited by a Royal Navy ship at least once this year. During 2000 our ships will visit, and in most cases train with, more than 100 different countries from Trinidad to Tokyo and from the Virgin Islands to Vladivostock.
We have more than 2,000 soldiers in Bosnia helping to provide the security conditions for the Bosnian people to rebuild their country, and we have 3,000 more in Kosovo. The Princess of Wales's Royal Regiment is in Sierra Leone providing training to the Sierra Leone army. A major armoured training exercise, Irofsn Eagle, is under way in Canada. A team of Army engineers is in Zambia helping to teach the Zambian army how to repair and maintain vehicles.
The Royal Air Force is deployed on operations in the Gulf and in the Balkans. It provides air defence and air transport support in the Falklands and supports the Army in Northern Ireland.
Mr. Gerald Howarth: I am conscious that the Minister is trying to set out the range of activities in which our armed forces are engaged. However, he will recall from last night that a number of points were raised. I raised some specific points about the cannon for the Eurofighter Typhoon, the type of training and the priority for spares. I also raised the issue of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency, concern about which is shared by Labour councillors, including the Minister's close friend in Aldershot. Does the Minister intend to deal with those issues, or will the Under-Secretary deal with them?
Mr. Spellar: I thank the hon. Gentleman for the way in which he put that. I am pleased to side-foot that to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary. It is called the division of labour—but the Opposition should know an awful lot about internal division. The hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green certainly knows about divisions, although I noticed that he kept out of the cannabis debate. I do not know whether he supports the shadow Home Secretary on that issue or whether he is just keeping out of it.
In addition, our aircraft are deployed widely, training with our allies to maintain operational effectiveness. This week, two Nimrod aircraft are exercising with the US Navy on the east coast of the USA, a flight of Harrier aircraft is flying across the Atlantic with a VC10 tanker and Nimrod support to train in Canada, and a joint exercise will start, bringing allied aircraft, ships and submarines together.
I have given just a snapshot of the huge range and scale of important activities which our forces get up to every day, helping to build a safer world and helping communities both at home and overseas. The Government are committed to ensuring that our armed forces become even more capable of carrying out those and other tasks, both at home and abroad. We have under way the best equipment programme in decades. We are committed to making things better for our people, providing better training and better support on operations, working with other Government Departments to bring better support at home, and looking at terms and conditions, and housing. Those are not just words and fine sentiments. Much of
878
what I have described is already happening. We have already underwritten our plans with a significant real-terms increase in the defence budget under the spending review 2000. This is a Government who are serious about defence, serious about the future of defence, and proud to be working with our armed forces to achieve that.
2.54 pm
Mr. Quentin Davies: Much of what the Minister has said is extremely sensible and positive. We welcome many of the things about which he has talked, such as the improvement in the logistics organisation and the recent arrangement with Rolls-Royce for repair of aircraft. All that seems to make complete sense, and we are glad that he is doing it. We congratulate him on the progress that he is making in improving some of the welfare issues that are so important for our armed services. The compliment that the Minister received from my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) was thoroughly deserved.
In the spirit of good-natured frankness across the Floor of the House, it might have been appreciated if the Minister had recalled—perhaps he did not mention it because he did not recall it—that three years ago my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) drew the attention of the Government, who were apparently ignorant of the problem, to the difficulty that our armed forces families experience, owing to the extent to which they move about, in getting credit and qualifying for the working families tax credit. I am glad to hear today that the Government have taken action on that, but the initial impetus came from the Opposition Front Bench. It was long before I sat on the Opposition Front Bench, but some credit might have been given to my hon. Friend.
Most of what the Minister said was measured, sensible and businesslike. Why he decided to start off so hysterically, I have no idea. Perhaps some spin doctor gave him his riding instructions. No doubt he would not give way to me because he was embarrassed about the rubbish that he was reading out. The whole Conservative party is committed to the Eurofighter programme. We launched the programme, signed the contract for it and defended it when there were difficulties with our allies—for example, when the Germans got cold feet about it.
Mr. Spellar: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Quentin Davies: I will of course give way to the Minister if he will let me finish my sentence.
We are also committed to the A400M programme—my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) made that clear when the programme was announced—but we are worried about whether the Government are capable of running that programme in a properly disciplined fashion and getting those aircraft into service when they are required.
The trouble is that the Government do not care about Parliament. They do not listen to what is said in Parliament. They would be a much more effective Government if they did. It is one of the great purposes of a debate such as this to bring forward the experience and knowledge of people across the House. Yesterday, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Sir P. Emery), who is again present in the Chamber, said

879
on the record that a French two-star air force general had said to him that he did not expect the A400M to come into service for 15 years. I trust that I am accurately quoting my right hon. Friend—I see from his nodding that I am. As we all know, my right hon. Friend is an extremely senior Member of the House and extremely experienced, especially in foreign affairs and defence matters. So a comment such as that must be taken seriously. We should be failing in our task as an Opposition if we did not raise such desperately serious matters and expect the Government to deal with them seriously. Childish scatter-gun insults based on ignorance of Opposition policy is no way to deal with vital defence matters.
If the Minister still wants me to give way to him, I will do so.
Mr. Spellar: Will the hon. Gentleman condemn the comments of Lord Tebbit in attacking Eurofighter?
Mr. Davies: I have not seen, and am not particularly interested in, Lord Tebbit's comments about the Eurofighter. I know that Lord Tebbit used to fly aircraft, but I believe that they were civilian aircraft. In my job, I have an awful lot of reading matter to get through written by people who are considered experts, and I am afraid that I have not come yet across anything written on the subject by Lord Tebbit.
This is a debate about our armed forces, and I want my principal remarks to be focused on the men and women who serve in them. It is also a defence debate and, as such, a very important occasion in the parliamentary timetable. We have only three major defence debates in the year.
I wish to raise a number of current issues on which we must get answers from the Government. I have seven key questions and I expect seven thoroughly serious answers before the end of the debate tonight.
It is about eight months since my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition asked me to take on my role as Opposition spokesman on Defence. It has been an enormous privilege to do so, but the greatest privilege of all has been the opportunity to spend time with the men and women who serve in our armed forces. In that regard, I am extremely grateful to the Government because they have enabled me to visit many military units in this country and, on two occasions, abroad—in the Gulf and in the Falklands.
Unlike some of my right hon. and hon. Friends, I do not have a professional background in the forces. Anyone who comes afresh to the world of the forces would share my reaction, which is one of enormous admiration and, sometimes, positive amazement at the consistent standard of motivation, and the thoroughness, professionalism, and perfectionism—a word I do not use lightly—with which members of the armed services approach their tasks, whether it be the handling or repairing of their equipment, their staff work or the planning and carrying out of their exercises. The atmosphere of discipline, interdependence, teamwork and selflessness that pervades the armed forces, and their can-do approach to life are wonderfully refreshing.
Anyone who meets members of the armed forces—as I have so fortunately been able to do during the past few months—will have no doubt that the country is enormously
880
lucky in their calibre. The only problem is that there are too few of them. Their numbers are down—currently, 8,000 below the minimum set out in the strategic defence review. That is thoroughly unsatisfactory.
Those numbers are subject to two variables: recruitment and retention. I have no criticism to make of the Government on recruitment; on the whole, they are undertaking sensible measures—similar to those that we might adopt if we were in their place—and there should be some small improvement as a result. We hope for further improvement.
The retention aspect, however, is especially alarming—as I think the Government realise. The retention problem contains the potential for a serious indictment of Government policy. Men and women are not serving in the armed forces for as long as they themselves expected to serve, and thus for as long as was anticipated when they were recruited. Furthermore, they do not spend as long in the forces as their predecessors. That is worrying and we must take the problem seriously.
There are several reasons for falling retention, all of which relate to morale. One reason is political correctness. The points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) yesterday were absolutely correct. He referred to the absurdities of the armed forces discipline legislation. Apparently, if one appeals against a commanding officer's decision in a disciplinary case, the ultimate punishment that one can receive cannot be more severe—and might even be more lenient—than the one originally imposed by the commanding officer. It will thus be rational for everyone to appeal against their commanding officer. It is hard to imagine a provision which, with one blow, will more effectively undermine discipline in the armed forces. We owe that wholly gratuitous attack on morale and discipline to the new Labour Government.
I shall not avoid another extremely important issue—women. No civilised or sensible person would suggest for a moment that we should discriminate against people on the grounds of sex. However, I have yet to meet any service woman who suggests that women should benefit from positive discrimination—so-called affirmative action. It would be irresponsible to the point of insanity to suggest that the thresholds for performance or other military attributes should be lowered on the grounds of sex when recruiting or promoting service personnel when people's lives depend on how they perform in conditions of great stress and difficulty.
The matter is not one of principle but of pragmatism. I pay great tribute to the role of women in all three services—in the front line in the RAF and, even more so, in the Navy. The extent to which women should be employed in the Army is a matter for the Army to decide. That is most important. The idea that politicians are interfering with such professional decisions is devastating for military morale.
Of course, it is up to political leaders to deploy the armed services: to ask them—at risk of their lives and, invariably, under considerable discomfort—to deploy to promote the country's interests and to defend our freedom. However, it is not the business of Ministers to interfere in the actual management of the armed services and to tell them by which criteria they should carry out recruitment and promotion. That distinction is essential.

881
I hope that Ministers will keep out of that matter altogether—as I assure the House the next Conservative Government will.
Several points on welfare were made clearly in yesterday's debate. I hope that the Government will listen to what is said in Parliament—especially from their Back Benchers. The hon. Members for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes) and for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Smith) and other hon. Members mentioned housing problems both for single people and for married couples. Those matters must be taken seriously.
The Minister for the Armed Forces tells us that he is taking all these points on board and that he is trying to do his best. We shall hold him to that. Will he give us regular updates and reports on the progress in improving housing?
Mr. Gapes: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the problems of housing that have bedevilled the armed forces date back to the 18 years when his party was in Government?
Mr. Davies: That is a petty party political point. Those housing problems go back to the 18th century. During the past 200 years, we have been making steady progress in housing Navy and Army personnel—as we have for the RAF during the past 50 to 80 years.
As civilisation advances, we hope that the armed forces—and not just the rest of society—reap the benefits too, and that people do not have to sleep on iron bedsteads 40 to a barrack room in a Nissan hut. That was probably the situation when the hon. Gentleman was a national service man in the 1950s—or during whatever the period on which he bases his example.
Contact with families is also crucial. It is one thing to be sent abroad—to a remote location, doing an inevitably dangerous job in difficult conditions. That is what the armed forces are trained for. However, contact with one's family is essential. These days, that means being able to telephone and to use the internet.
I welcome the Minister's statement about the greater availability of internet access for members of the forces posted overseas. I experienced that when I visited the Falklands recently. Real progress is being made. A new computer centre is being installed. That is a positive move and I pay tribute to the Government for that.
Progress has been made on telephones. Earlier this year, the Minister announced that members of the armed forces serving in war zones would be given 20 minutes of free telephone time every week to speak to their families. One could always ask for more, but that is an important step forward for which I thank the Government.
When I returned from Kuwait, I held a private conversation with the Minister, but—as will become clear—it is reasonable and proper for me to mention it now. I told him that, in practice, people were experiencing problems in getting through on the telephone. He sorted out the problem and—generously—paid tribute to me in the House for having brought it to his attention. Obviously, his mood then was different from his mood earlier this afternoon.
We are making steady progress and that is splendid. I take this opportunity to make a further suggestion. When I visited the Falklands, I found that although people had telephone access, it was extremely expensive.
882
The overseas allowance for the Falkland Islands happens to be 35p a day, which seems pretty derisory. It costs 80p or 90p a minute to telephone the United Kingdom from the Falkland Islands, depending on the hour of the day, so one minute costs twice the whole of one day's overseas allowance.
Obviously, that situation is very unsatisfactory. Perhaps the overseas allowance should be increased to take account of the cost of telephone calls, but I want to suggest to the Minister a much more sensible arrangement. Of course, in a war zone, our armed forces may telephone home for 20 minutes for free, but my suggestion extends beyond that. We should establish a general principle that when we deploy our armed forces abroad, they may telephone home for the rate that the same call would cost them within the UK. That is very reasonable. It is not their fault that they are sent abroad; it is not their fault that "abroad" may mean 500 or 8,000 miles away, as with the Falkland Islands; and it is not their fault that a particular telephone company happens to have a monopoly of telecommunications in the country concerned. I hope that we shall make further progress on that.
Contact with families is very important indeed. Traditionally, it has been very important. The hon. Member for Ilford, South will remember from his time in the Army that troops were very concerned about when their mail deliveries arrived. Of course, in those days, although there may have been telephones, they did not really work across frontiers. Now we are moving into the telecommunications age, and I hope that we can improve matters.
Mr. Gapes: Let me put the record straight. I was born in September 1952, so presumably I would have been called up at the age of six.
Mr. Davies: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if his appearance deceived me somewhat. I am getting fairly bald myself, so I had better be careful.
Clearly, one of the big issues about morale, and the retention that impacts greatly on it, is the number of deployments and the rapid turnround time between them. The Minister has said that the situation is much better than it was at the height of the Kosovo campaign, and we are grateful for that. We are certainly grateful for the minimum leave time after overseas deployments, but obviously this is a self-aggravating problem. To improve morale, we must get our numbers up to scratch. The only way to get our numbers up to scratch effectively in short order would be to work on the retention, rather than the recruitment, side of the equation, because it would take much longer to get our numbers up simply by enhanced recruitment. If we can persuade people to stay on a little longer, we shall get there. Everything should be focused on trying to do so.
At present, what is particularly upsetting people is not the announcement of unexpected new deployments, because everyone who joins the armed services knows that they are at the mercy of international events. They are serving the Queen, and they know that they may have to go anywhere in the light of what happens in the world, which, in the nature of things, is not predictable. But what is particularly annoying and frustrating, and a legitimate source of grievance, is knowing that the reason why they

883
have not had the leave, or the time at home, or the home posting, that they expected has nothing to do with the international situation, or with serving the Queen—it is simply that the Government have not got the numbers up to strength. They are being deployed because the guy who should have been deployed for the operation is not there because the numbers are lacking. Therefore it is a self-aggravating problem, and in my view the Government must do something about it, as a matter of real urgency.
Two other things impact on morale, although their major deleterious impact is actually on the operational side—on our ability to do the job, defend the country and carry out our mission. The first of those is the training business.
In the past 12 months, the present Government have gone in for cancelling training exercises to save piffling amounts of money. The amounts are probably less than they are spending on military lawyers and military policemen under their completely unnecessary Armed Forces Discipline Act 2000, which will cost £15 million in the first year. For such amounts of money they have been cancelling major naval exercises. They cancelled the Flotex exercise. They cancelled the Marines' winter exercise in Norway. Anyone who knows anything about the Marines knows that that is one of the two major events of the year—an essential part of their training. The Government must stop cancelling these exercises for such reasons.
Of course there are operational reasons, or other reasons beyond the Government's control, why exercises may have to be cancelled and rescheduled, but they should not be cancelled for that kind of penny-pinching reason, least of all when the Government are wasting money as they are. We want an absolute commitment that when exercises are cancelled they will be reinstated. They should merely be deferred, and the Government should have an obligation to reinstate them.
Mr. Paul Keetch: On the issue of the Royal Marines' Arctic exercise, when I was with 42 Commando in Virginia last year, people told me that they were quite pleased not to be doing the Arctic training that winter because it was a regular thing, which they had done time and again, and they felt that they knew it. They found other things that they were involved in to be much more beneficial to them. I accept that some exercises may have been cancelled on financial grounds, but I do not think that the Marines going to the Arctic was one of them.
Mr. Davies: It is wonderful with what gallantry the Liberal Democrats rush to the Government's defence, even though Ministers sit paralysed on their Bench, not knowing how to respond. That is a good try, but it will not work, because that exercise was not cancelled for functional reasons. If it was cancelled for functional reasons, let the Government now say in terms what the functional reasons were which meant that, in terms of greater priorities, that exercise should not have taken place at that time. I fear that it was cancelled for the reasons that I mentioned. It makes the whole matter a great deal more squalid when concealment is added to the initial failure and there is an attempt to bamboozle the public. It is a very important issue indeed.
884
The second matter that has an important impact on morale but is primarily of importance for operational, functional reasons is equipment. The Government must not neglect it. If equipment is not adequate—if we ask our men and women to fight without the equipment which they should have, and which allies fighting alongside them, such as the Americans, have—that is deeply demoralising. It is a thoroughly unsatisfactory state of affairs if our armed forces cannot communicate, if they are not properly interoperable, or if they are at risk from events from which allied forces taking part in the same operation may not be at risk.
On Thursday, I mentioned a list of instances in which, at present, our equipment is inadequate and the Government have not responded with anything like the necessary urgency, or at all. Where are the stern sonars for type 23 frigates? When will they be fitted? Five type 23 frigates, supposedly with an anti-submarine role, do not have those stern sonars. The Government have spent three years on the GR1-GR4 conversion programme. We have yet to hear what stage it has reached and when it will be completed. Those are very important matters.
The SA80 is absolutely crucial. The fear that one's rifle may jam in an emergency can have a terrible effect on morale. That must be sorted out definitively, one way or another.
That brings me to the subject of communications. What an extraordinary state of affairs it is in which the British Army is sent into combat in the field with portable telephones—the sort of thing that can be bought in any store on the Tottenham Court road—or, even worse, with a radio system, the Clansman, that does not work properly or is not as secure as it should be.
There is no doubt at all that this has been a long, complicated saga and that the matter was not resolved—as I wish it had been—in the 18 years of Conservative Government. Equally, there is no doubt at all that this Government bear 100 per cent. responsibility for what has happened over the last three and a half years. Almost throughout that time they have put themselves in the hands of the Archer consortium, and they have now confessed that that was a mistake.
I understand the reluctance of any Government to stop throwing good money after bad. The Government have taken more than three years to take that decision. They have pulled the contract away from Archer and are re-letting it, and we wish them good luck and godspeed in getting it right this time. Nevertheless, we have lost £200 million and three years. The Government would come out of this story with a great deal more dignity and credibility if they were prepared explicitly to accept their share of responsibility for that disaster.
Mr. Donald Anderson: The hon. Gentleman is giving a long list of reasons, mostly valid, for problems in recruitment. Is he not missing the main point—that we are now benefiting from the lowest unemployment for over 20 years?
Mr. Davies: The hon. Gentleman is wrong in this respect: the military profession is a vocation. In some ways, it is rather like the House of Commons, for example. I do not think that there is any falling away of desire to come and serve in this place simply because people could make more money elsewhere. The military

885
profession has always been a vocation and attracts a particular type of person. Frankly, it would not be suitable for the great mass of humanity. Furthermore, the profession has considerable advantages. I have yet to come across anyone who has spent a part of his career in the military—where he may be superbly trained to do a technical job or go on to do a management job—who has not added not only to the richness of his life but to his qualifications for a subsequent job in the civilian sector.
I said that I wanted to take advantage of this debate to extract information from the Government. "Extract" is the verb that I must use, because we have to go through a painful and long drawn-out process to obtain information these days. The Government do not like telling Parliament anything. When they want to give information out, they like to do so in a highly doctored, selective way through the press and in a way that is carefully spun by their spin doctors. What they do not like to do is give straight answers to Parliament.
May we have straight answers this afternoon? We shall all be listening to find out whether the Government are capable of doing that. I am sure that the Under-Secretary of State for Defence is more than capable of providing them if he wishes to do so and if he is allowed to do so by his superiors on the Government Front Bench and in the Treasury, which seems to run military policy under this Government. If the Government give us straight answers, we will be able to have a serious discussion and move forward. If not, we shall continue to return to the issues until we receive straight answers. Let me give the Government that warning at the outset.
First, on submarines, at least some information was given to us yesterday—although we did not have a formal statement because we rarely hear them these days—and I am grateful for that. However, it was not enough, as my intervention yesterday made absolutely clear. We know that five of our 12 hunter-killer submarines have been cleared of having the same problem that HMS Tireless has in Gibraltar. That is very good news, and I understand that three of the strategic submarine nuclear—SSN—vessels that have been cleared are Swiftsure class and that the other two are Trafalgar class. However, if the Government do not yet know, when do they expect to know the status of the other submarines? We know about five and Tireless, so that makes six. If we subtract six from 12, we get six, and I think that the Government will agree with the arithmetic. What is the status of the other submarines, and when can we expect to know that?
We also need to know what is happening about Tireless. How long will she remain in Gibraltar? Will she be repaired in Gibraltar, or will she be towed back to this country? How long will it take to repair her? If other SSNs are found to need work, are the berths and specialists available? What time scale can we expect before the SSN fleet—God knows it is the smallest that it has been in the past 50 years—is back in service. At the best of times, we do not normally have more than seven or eight of the submarines available for operations, so we badly need to know what the position is.
Secondly, can we have a statement about the Tucanos? I am surprised that the Government have not provided any information about them, because I would have given it if I were a Minister. Tucanos are the prime Royal Air Force trainer and they are all out of service. There must be about 100 of them although the Under-Secretary will give me the exact figure. Every one of them is out of service,
886
and it is amazing that, last week, two whole systems or platforms were completely out of service. I cannot remember an occasion when even one system was out of service. It is amazing what happens under a new Labour Government. I am sure that Ministers want us to believe that that is a coincidence.
Can we please know what is happening to the Tucanos and what the nature of the problem is? When do Ministers expect them to be fixed? We merely want clear answers on that subject. We have no objection to the pilots being sent in the meantime to Australia; that may be a sensible solution.
Mr. Spellar: My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will deal with the details, but let me make it clear to the hon. Gentleman that all armed forces would sensibly take aircraft or other vehicles out of service when a common defect in one type is found and while the fault is established and the recovery programme is undertaken. That happens in all forces. The United States Marines recently had three of their major platforms grounded while they were dealing with defects. That happens in the commercial world, too.
All the hon. Gentleman should be considering is the defect, its cause, the recovery programme and the alternatives available, and my hon. Friend will deal with those points. Instead of becoming excitable, the hon. Gentleman should accept that such things happen and that we will deal with them.
Mr. Davies: The Minister at least takes a fairly humble tone for once. I am glad about that, because the Government owe the House answers. The hon. Gentleman has touched on exactly the questions that I asked. What is the defect and what is the time scale within which it will be fixed? If he had been listening to my remarks, he would have realised that I said that it was not necessarily wrong to withdraw either the submarines or the Tucanos from service—not at all; I dare say that was the right thing to do. However, we do not know all the facts that we should know. Perhaps we will have them at the end of the debate, but I certainly did not suggest that those platforms should not have been withdrawn from service. However, since the first announcements about those two disasters were spun out in the media in the way they usually are, I have thought that the House was owed a full and proper explanation. We still have not received one.
Let me deal now with the third platform—the Lynx helicopter. We have just over 200 of them—how many of them are currently out of commission because of the rotor head fatigue problem? I realise that a certain number of Lynx helicopters will always be in refit or being maintained, but how many of them that should be operational are not operational? Can we have an update on the position, because we have heard nothing since my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green asked a parliamentary question in May? The Government do not seem to want to tell the House anything, but they must tell us where we stand on this important piece of equipment that is essential to the Army, the Marines and the Navy.
The fourth key point that I come to is ISTAR, and for the benefit of the Hansard writers I should spell out what that means. It is the information, surveillance, target acquisition and reconnaissance capability. We should

887
have had a statement on that, but we have not. The Government have entered into a contract to purchase aircraft with an airborne stand-off radar—ASTOR—fitted to them. However, we have not heard how many aircraft are being purchased and when they will come into service. Can we please have a clear statement on this important aspect of the country's military capability?
Fifthly, it is extraordinary that the Government did not take the opportunity in last Thursday's debate or yesterday to mention the most important procurement decision that they are likely to take in the remaining months of their time in office. After that, they can enjoy the benefits of opposition and we can give them advice on how to play it in opposition when we change places with them.
Before the next election—even if the election comes as early as May—the Government will have to take a crucial decision on the joint strike fighter programme. Will we enter the engineering management design—EMD—stage for the JSF? [Interruption.] I think that I heard the Under-Secretary say under his breath that he did not know yet, but the Government have a way of running away from difficult decisions. If they do not know yet, what factors that are currently not available to them do they need to be aware of so that they can take an informed decision? I hope that the Under-Secretary will answer my first question.
Secondly, by when do we need to take the decision? The Americans have said that the decision must definitely be taken soon, but have they given us a deadline? If so, when is it? Thirdly, how much will it cost us to join the EMD stage? I am told that it is $2 billion. Is that figure approximately correct? If it is, over what time scale will the money have to be paid over to the US Department of Defence? Fourthly, if we do pay over the $2 billion, what will we receive for it? Will we receive an assurance of full access to the technology and to the know-how that will enable the British partners to build the aircraft or parts of the aircraft here and will we have full access to the updates on technology? Will there be full know-how disclosure?
Fifthly, will there be an opportunity for British subcontractors and American subcontractors to bid on the same basis in exchange for $2 billion, which is no mean sum? Sixthly, if we pay the $2 billion up front, will we benefit from an export levy on third-party sales of the joint strike fighter subsequently? Seventhly, if we are to come up with the $2 billion, is that money already in the budget, or will the Minister have to go to the Treasury to get a supplementary budget? If it is to come out of the Ministry of Defence budget, will that be at the expense of something else? We need a clear answer.
If we do not pay the $2 billion, what are the penalties? Will we have sufficient control of the programme? Given that specifications may change at the later EMD stage, in addition to what is agreed, is that a satisfactory situation?
Finally on this matter, will the decision to enter the EMD phase prejudice in any way our decision whether to go for conventional take-off and landing aircraft or short take-off and vertical landing aircraft? In other words, whether we go for a STOVL or a CTOL-type carrier. There is an important interrelationship between these decisions and we must establish whether the one will
888
prejudice the other. I hope that we shall have some straightforward answers on this important matter. It is the most important procurement decision that the Government might take, and they have steadily and studiously avoided mentioning a breath of it. They have not said a word about it to Parliament. That is not good enough.
I shall make two other important points, and I hope that the Under-Secretary, who is to reply, will listen to them. Again, we want some answers.
Sir Peter Emery: Before my hon. Friend finishes his list, will he point out that most of us who spoke yesterday made a number of serious points which received no reply? Will he reiterate the need for us to know what the Government intend with the Parliamentary Assembly if the Western European Union is done away with? Perhaps the Government would also like to say what extra money or manpower is needed for them to go forward, if they intend to, with the European defence initiative. These questions must be answered.
Mr. Davies: I hope that my right hon. Friend's points will be taken on board. I have already reminded the Government of the important matter that my right hon. Friend raised yesterday and of the intelligence that he brought to the House about the French view of the likely coming-into-service date of the A400M. I hope that the Government will respond.
I have not finished with the Government because I shall raise two other important matters on which decisions will be taken shortly, and certainly long before we have another defence debate. We need to know where the Government stand. That is what parliamentary government is all about. One of the two matters is the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency. The Government will have to take a decision on it. When will they take it? The worst thing is the uncertainty that their present indecision and vacillation has created. The situation is extremely worrying.
DERA is losing people. Its annual report sets out the decline in manpower in the agency. DERA will also be losing out on collaborative opportunities with the private sector and elsewhere, including the Americans in their public sector, with the Department of Defence and its various institutes. This continuing state of uncertainty has caused damage. When will a decision be taken? That is the first thing that we need to know.
If the Minister does not know, let me help him with the decision that he must take. Whatever decision he takes, he must not opt for the breaking up or fragmentation of the agency and partial privatisation. That would be the worst of all possible worlds. We know that that would be a squalid compromise between the initial proposal that the previous Conservative Administration turned down after due consideration of complete privatisation and the Treasury's desperate desire to get £300 million out of defence at any price in terms of our future defence capability. Also, there are the American objections to full privatisation. Such a decision would not add up.
I shall set out four good reasons why such a decision would not make sense. First, DERA has the dual role of advising the Government on the evaluation of defence bids and research. It is extremely important that the Government have access to independent technical advice on evaluation. The agency's second role is the research and development that it carries out when assessing new military technologies.

889
Theoretically, the agency could be divided along those lines, but it would be disastrous to do so. DERA has first-class scientists who are at the head of their game internationally. If they were told that they were only to be in the business of advising the Government and evaluating bids, having been taken away from the coal face of research, they would not stay in the agency. That would lead to second and third-rate people undertaking evaluation and advisory roles. We cannot split DERA on that basis.
A second basis on which we might theoretically split the agency is the one on which the Government are proceeding, which is to keep in a retained DERA those parts of the organisation that are working in close collaboration with the United States so as to appease American fears, and to privatise the rest. That will not work either because the two divides will not be the same. There is the division between the people whom we need to retain to advise the Government objectively and those engaged in research, and the other people we need to retain because they are dealing with the Americans and the Americans do not want them to be privatised; and the two distinctions do not coincide.
Thirdly, even if we could make such a distinction on day one, it would not be valid the following day, the following week or the following month. It is important that all aspects of DERA can enter into fruitful collaboration with overseas partners, especially the Americans. That relationship is crucial. It can also enter into joint ventures with the private sector. We cannot freeze for once and all which parts of DERA may be involved either with the Americans or with the evaluation and internal advisory role as opposed to the research role. That does not make sense.
Finally, if the Government think—it would be entirely consistent with the frame of mind and culture of new Labour—that they can somehow finesse the issue by clever spin, by saying that one part of the agency is being privatised and the other is being retained, when in practice both parts will stay together in the same building and have a symbiotic relationship, they underestimate the intelligence of other people. The Americans and the private sector here are not fools; they will see through that immediately. If there is to be a bogus exercise, the Government will end up again with the worst of all possible worlds, with disruption being caused and unnecessary costs being incurred by having two organisations and two sets of overheads. The Americans will still walk away and the private sector will still hesitate to deal with the privatised sector of DERA because there is the issue of giving away for free its own intellectual property. That concern will inevitably exist if it is dealing with what might be a rival commercial enterprise.
There is no basis on which DERA can be split up, except one which will seriously damage the utility and, therefore, the value of DERA as a whole. There will be enormous negative synergies if the organisation is split, and the Government should think again while there is time.
Finally, I come to the great decision that the Government must take in the next three weeks. We are coming up to the commitment conference under the common European foreign security and defence policy, at which the various member states of the European Union will say what they are contributing to the party, or to the
890
catalogue as it is technically called, to achieve the Helsinki headline goals. We are only three weeks away from the conference. Either the Government do not know what they will contribute or they are damn well not going to tell Parliament about it. This is the second day of the defence debate, and we had a defence debate last week, but we still have not heard a word about the UK contribution.
Yesterday, my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green dealt extremely authoritatively, if I may say so, with the important political, geopolitical and philosophical aspects of CEFSDP. He referred to the possible advantages, the risks and the motivation of the Government in proceeding in one direction or another. I am merely dealing with practical decisions that must be taken in the next couple of weeks or so. I am asking on behalf of Parliament what the Government will do. What have they decided? It is inconceivable that a commitment conference is to take place in three weeks' time and the Government do not know what they will say. Are they going to be completely empty pocketed and empty handed? If they know, they should be telling Parliament now.
Also, we need to know what commitment the Government intend to make in terms of prioritising assets. It is clear that this will be an exercise in double-hatting, triple-hatting or even quadruple-hatting. After all, our forces have commitments to NATO. We may have domestic commitments in Northern Ireland, or commitments overseas—for example, the Falklands, possibly Brunei or Zimbabwe, if that blows up, or perhaps Belize, if we still regard ourselves as committed there. Those have nothing to do with either the Washington treaty or the Brussels treaty territorial defence commitments, or with the new Petersberg tasks and therefore with the headline goals.
We thus have, first, the NATO article 5 commitments; secondly, the other overseas and domestic commitments; and thirdly, a commitment—which some of us find rather worrying and gratuitous—to support UN forces. Now the Government are coming up with a fourth commitment, so it seems that we will be quadruple-hatting the same assets and the same men and women in our armed services. That is a meaningless exercise—just playing with toy soldiers—unless the prioritisation is clear.
That must be true also for our European allies. They are coming to the commitment conference, one hopes, with their own proposals. If these are not new capabilities and are not dedicated to the Helsinki headline goal—we are told that that will not be the approach—they, too, will be double-hatting or triple-hatting. Again, we need to know what the prioritisation is.
That is the most important issue to be discussed this afternoon. Enormously important decisions will be taken and tremendous risks will be run if we get it wrong. If, after all the time-consuming meetings in Brussels, Paris and Nice, after the good dinners and the self-congratulatory speeches and toasts, we come up with not a single new ship, aircraft, tank, weapons system or infantry unit; if all that we are doing is double-hatting, triple-hatting or quadruple-hatting existing units and assets; if we do not even have a prioritisation programme; and if people say, "We are not going to do any more by way of increasing our capability, and what is more, we will turn up on the day only if we feel like it, on a

891
good day, and if we have nothing better to do with our forces at that moment", the entire exercise will be seen to have been a thoroughgoing fraud.
That will bring with it enormous dangers, not least if the Americans see that the exercise is a thoroughgoing fraud. The Government may be totally incompetent but they are dealing, sadly, with matters that carry very high stakes. If, instead of enhancing the cohesion and solidarity of the Atlantic alliance, the exercise begins to undermine American confidence in European commitments and promises, the Government will have presided over the undermining of that great achievement, the Atlantic alliance, which, ironically, was created by a Labour Government—the Labour Government of Attlee and Bevin—with the very strong support of Churchill and the Opposition of that time, and the support of every Conservative Government since that time.
If that happens, the Government will not merely stand condemned before the Bar of history for simple, banal, muddling incompetence. They will be accused of having perpetrated a monumental historical disaster.
3.43 pm
Mr. Donald Anderson: The hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) reminded me of some advice that I received from a fellow parliamentarian, to the effect that one should use the word "finally" several times during a speech because it excites expectations. Those expectations were at last fulfilled. Like other colleagues, I imagine, after the speeches from the two Front Benches I feel a little breathless, so I shall speak more slowly and gather pace as I develop my theme.
Both sides have expressed enormous admiration for the quality of our armed services, one of the great groups of excellence that we still retain. I like to think that the Bar is another. Both sides also recognise that it is a privilege to speak in a defence debate. Although we are a minority group, and fewer and fewer parliamentarians have a direct knowledge of life in the services, there is still a considerable degree of expertise.
Since 1989, there has been a fundamental change in the defence environment in the world and particularly in Europe. All the old certainties have gone—the static defence in central Europe—with the logistic and equipment implications which follow from that. In yesterday's debate, it was the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell), I think, who mentioned "upholders". That is symbolic of the nature of the change.
There is, for example, a new Russian military doctrine. There are currently as many surface ships in the Russian as in the British fleet. I do not mention submarines, but that aspect is also very different. The changes are not confined to Europe. As a result of the change in African policy, there are more French soldiers in the Balkans—in Bosnia and Kosovo—than in the whole of Africa. There is thus a sea change in priorities for us and our European allies.
We must learn to adjust. That is difficult for many of us, who learned and experienced our defence in earlier decades. We are light years away from a scenario in which there may be a significant conventional article 5 threat to
892
NATO territory. As we hear in so many debates, the word "security" is much more widely defined. In the past, security meant military and political matters; now, it is extended to organised crime, migration and the environment.
All that is the background to my remarks about the nature of the Atlantic alliance and the potential strains in that alliance. I shall also follow the remarks of the right hon. Member for East Devon (Sir P. Emery) about parliamentary scrutiny of defence in Europe. I begin with the United States' role and the relationships between the United States and the European Union in the defence field.
For us, part of the adjustment relates to the projections that we make about how the US will relate to Europe over the next decade and beyond. The US is the sole super-power, and there is a perceived need for greater European co-ordination in defence. That is an old issue—we discussed it in the Harmel debate in the 1970s. In the Brussels summit communiqué of the early 1990s, there was an emphasis on the European contribution.
That is a serious debate, which is not helped at national level by the anti-Europeanism expressed from the Opposition Front Bench and widely within the Opposition. I was waiting to hear whether the word "Europe" would be allowed to escape from the lips of the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford, who, if not the last of the Mohicans, is perhaps the last of the Europeans on the Opposition Front Bench. I did hear the word, at least towards the end of his speech.
For the Conservative Opposition, 10 October was a rather sad day, because of the unhappy coincidence that the shadow Foreign Secretary gave a speech in Paris to IFRI—the French equivalent of Chatham House—in which he spoke about the new European defence arm as a harmful and pointless project driven by what he called a "cancer of anti-Americanism".
Alas, the telephone had not rung between Paris and Birmingham. Just a few hours before that speech, William Cohen, the US Secretary of State for Defence, said in Birmingham that
it is right and natural that an increasingly integrated Europe seeks to develop its own Security and Defense Policy with the military capability to back it up. Let me be clear on America's position: we agree with this goal—not grudgingly, not with resignation, but with wholehearted conviction.
In seeking to gloss over that, the Opposition have been forced to rely on some rather dated remarks made in Chatham House last September by Strobe Talbot, and on something that was said at the press conference, with which most of us agree—that there should not be a duplication across the board in planning between the EU and the US.
Mr. Menzies Campbell: Does the hon. Gentleman also recall that Strobe Talbot's lecture at Chatham House was based on the proposition that while there should be a European security and defence identity, certain conditions had to be satisfied? These were not obstacles, but rather conditions to be satisfied, in the context of which an ESDP was entirely sensible.
Mr. Anderson: I was there and I remember what was said. The whole tenor of the Strobe Talbot presentation was positive, but the Conservative Opposition chose to extract a single sentence that could be construed as being negative. We have the very words of the current United

893
States Secretary of State for Defence, uttered hours before the expression of a visceral anti-Europeanism that cannot be in our national interest. Even The Times reluctantly carried the headline, "Tory tirade falls flat as US backs European force". Let that speak for itself.
Mr. Duncan Smith: The hon. Gentleman is perhaps guilty of the offence of which he accuses the Opposition—of being selective in what he chooses to report. The press conference that took place afterwards criticised the report on the basis of its suggestion that the American Secretary of State for Defence had changed his position. He said that he had not, and that he had deep misgivings. Incidentally, he had mentioned those misgivings in a section of his speech that was not reported in The Times.
Mr. Anderson: If it was clear that he had not changed his position, he must have been in favour of the proposal in the past. The words speak for themselves. I have a copy of the speech here, and have highlighted key sections. If the hon. Gentleman has not read it, I will pass it to him. Anyone placing an objective construction on it will see that it is very positive about burden sharing in the alliance and the new EU initiative.
The only part of the speech on which the Opposition can rely—in fact, I agree with this—is the part that suggests that there should be no duplication of planning facilities across the board. The US Secretary of State for Defence said:
We hope to establish that if NATO and the UN were to proceed along the path of relying on autonomous force and planning structures
they should not duplicate those facilities.
It is impossible to identify any serious contradiction between what the European Union—as stated—is doing and the positive reaffirmation in that speech.
Mr. Brazier: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Anderson: No, because others wish to speak—and I hope that the hon. Gentleman does not claim that the United States is now giving a gut negative response to EU developments.
Mr. Brazier rose—
Mr. Anderson: I really must proceed with my speech.
There are clearly uncertainties in the long term about the US commitment to Europe. The debate will not be resolved by next week's presidential election, but the results of that election will obviously influence the trend.
We in Europe are fortunate in that, over the years, we have benefited from an Atlanticist US foreign and defence policy establishment. We benefited enormously even during the Falklands conflict, when Mrs. Kirkpatrick tried to steer policy more towards the hispanics because of demographic trends. Some day those trends will catch up with us.
We see echoes of that in what has been said by Condoleezza Rice, Governor Bush's senior national security adviser. On 21 October, for example, The New York Times reported her as saying that
If elected president, George W. Bush plans to tell NATO that the United States should no longer participate in peacekeeping in the Balkans.
894
Apparently, NATO's Secretary-General is saying that that would have an unravelling effect.
Condoleezza Rice told the newspaper:
The governor is talking about a new division of labor…And extended peacekeeping detracts from our readiness for these kinds of global missions.
She clearly underestimated the negative reaction in Europe. This raises questions about the future policy of the US under a Bush Administration.
Mr. Evans: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Anderson: No, I really must make progress. I may give way later.
National missile defence is one of the possible strains on the alliance that loom. A report published in July by the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs stated that a United Kingdom refusal to allow the upgrading of Fylingdales would be
unprecedented and prove very testing for the alliance.
It "would have profound consequences" for our bilateral relations.
There has been a delay. The policy of Governor Bush is said to represent, possibly, a more ambitious project involving expensive sea-based plans. Is the NMD policy defence industry driven? Will the US listen to the serious concerns that are being expressed in Europe? What—I ask this in the light of the speech made yesterday by the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife—will be the effects on the anti-ballistic missile treaty?
That depends partly on an assessment of whether Russia is prepared to deal, or is absolutist in its opposition to NMD. I know that the right hon. Member for East Devon attended a meeting at which it was suggested that the Russians would try to extract the best deal that they could. The analogy is given of Russian opposition to German reunification until the price is paid. It is a dangerous possibility—and, of course, behind Russia is China. We must ask again whether, given the new rapprochement or at least thaw between the US and North Korea, the perceived threat will be reduced to such an extent that the US will be able to draw certain conclusions about NMD.
Let us return to Europe. The policy of the European Union will develop—pace the Conservatives—and will apparently have US understanding if it is clearly based on NATO as the core of our security. It will involve the use of US assets, which have been promised, as well as a necessary burden sharing in the spirit of St. Malo. The tasks will be limited peacekeeping and crisis management.
My hesitations about the EU initiative derive from two issues. First, as is frequently pointed out, it is easier to make grand declarations than to pay the money to support them. Although there has been a marginal increase in UK defence expenditure following the comprehensive spending review in July, that has not been matched by our European allies, much to NATO's concern.
My second worry relates to the problems of intelligence within the proposed European structure. The culture of the EU consists of transparency, openness to citizens and, indeed, leaking. The culture of intelligence and the military is secrecy, if matters are to proceed properly. We heard echoes of the problem facing the EU when we learned that it had no building that was secure. There was

895
also the problem of interpreters who refused to be positively vetted in respect of defence matters. We now learn that the European Parliament has made a submission to the European Court of Justice against the 14 August decision of the European Council to forbid public access to classified documents.
That suggests that many of our good colleagues in the European Parliament are living in a very different world if they expect Europe to have a proper defence role and are unwilling to follow that through in terms of the classification of documents. We in national Parliaments have reached various forms of modus vivendi with our Executives in that respect. They are not always satisfactory, but the European Parliament and European institutions must learn that the culture of intelligence is very different from the culture of openness.
I end with two matters. The first is NATO enlargement. When we project United States relations with the European Union, we have to ask, "Which Europe?" We know that there is a possibility of NATO enlargement in 2002, and that many countries are anxious to join the alliance. That applies not only to Slovenia, which was an unfortunate victim in the previous enlargement, but to Baltic countries. They pose special problems. For example, Estonia has been a model country in terms of the membership action plan. It has done all that can be required and more. Yet, in the current sensitive circumstances, it is difficult to envisage a rapid move towards including Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania in the alliance. Perhaps incorporating them in the European Atlantic structures will have to begin with the European Union.
Secondly, I want to consider the important point that the right hon. Member for East Devon made yesterday. In our democracies, we must have informed debate about and scrutiny of defence. That is done reasonably effectively by our national Parliaments: in this country, in the Chamber and by our excellent Select Committee on Defence and the objective reports that it produces. However, nowadays, few of us have done national service and the Army is shrinking, and there is a danger of the military separating itself from civil society. We must find ways in which to bridge that gap.
The Foreign Secretary told the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs that he views the European developments as essentially intergovernmental. That means that national Parliaments must get together on some basis. I agree that the European Parliament should be included, but not as a first among equals. If there is to be adequate scrutiny of developments in the European Union, we already have the Western European Union Assembly. It will continue because it exists through the Western European Union treaty and does a reasonably effective job.
In the first six months of next year, there will be a happy convergence because Sweden will chair the European Union and the Netherlands will hold the presidency of WEU. The Netherlands is keen for an in-depth examination of the key parliamentary dimension. It wants the subject to be on the agenda at Nice. The French are resisting that because of the danger of overloading the agenda. However, I urge my right hon.
896
Friends to support the Dutch at Nice to ensure that a marker is at least put down and that the subject is firmly on the agenda.
Mr. John Wilkinson: The hon. Gentleman is making an interesting and important contribution. The enormous merit of the WEU Assembly, of which I have the privilege of being a member, is that it includes representatives of the national Parliaments of 28 European countries, with various statuses. It includes the Ukrainians, and representatives of the Baltic states—regions of critical importance to overall European security, which cannot be viewed simply in a European Union context.
Mr. Anderson: The hon. Gentleman is a distinguished member of that Assembly, and I listen to his comments with respect. I am sure that he will agree that the new developments mean that the European Parliament must be linked into the process in some way. However, we cannot simply have a six-monthly meeting of those who chair Defence and Foreign Affairs Committees, which Mr. Brock, who chairs the Foreign Affairs Committee of the European Parliament, wants. That would be wholly inadequate. We must build on the strength of the WEU Assembly. Hence the importance of placing it on the agenda at Nice and fully discussing it in the first six months of next year.
The Prime Minister made an important speech in Warsaw, where he discussed a second chamber for the European Parliament. As he said, that second chamber could cover defence and security matters. However, another intergovernmental conference will not be held until at least 2004; with ratification, we are considering 2005. In the important interim period, we must seriously discuss democratic scrutiny of defence within Europe and in the context of the co-ordination of European countries. I urge the Government to join our Dutch colleagues to ensure that the matter is firmly on the agenda.
4.5 pm
Mr. Paul Keetch: It is a pleasure to speak in the debate. As other hon. Members have done yesterday and today, I begin by paying tribute to the members of Her Majesty's armed forces. They are some of the finest trained and led forces in the world. I especially associate myself with the remarks from the three Front Benches on the death of Bombardier Brad Tinnion, who was buried in my constituency only a few weeks ago. His service with 22SAS again shows that that regiment has been in the front line on more than one occasion in the past 12 months. It is an example of the very best of the very best, and I pay tribute to it.
I welcome many of the comments of the Minister for the Armed Forces, who is sadly no longer in his place. I especially welcome the new arrangement that he announced today between Rolls-Royce and the Defence Aviation Repair Agency. My late father trained with Rolls-Royce and served with RAF ground crew during the second world war. He knew then as we know today about the close links between the RAF and Rolls-Royce. I am sure that the announcement will be welcomed by Rolls-Royce and the RAF.
I also welcome the Minister's comments about the local use of credit cards in procurement. It works on bases and means that people can acquire equipment locally and

897
source it more effectively and efficiently. I also welcome the increase in internet use by members of the armed forces.
The Minister was also right to praise flag officer sea training—FOST. I have been to Plymouth and, like other hon. Members, have undergone a Thursday war to see the efficient way in which our Royal Navy works. FOST is one of the key training elements of western navies. It is extremely useful and successful, and its use of NATO and other diesel-electric submarines—we have none of our own and sadly, we now have only one nuclear submarine—is a common feature of FOST.
The Prime Minister said that a memorial would be dedicated to the men and women killed in the troubles in Northern Ireland. On behalf of the Liberal Democrats, I express our gratitude for that. We look forward to its establishment.
The hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) thanked the Government for the access that he and his colleagues have to military establishments. I echo that on behalf of the Liberal Democrats. It is an important part of our democratic procedures that not only defence spokesmen, but all Members of Parliament, have the sort of access that we are afforded. I thank Ministers and officials, who also play an important role, for that.
On one of the points that the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) made, we have a problem in Britain and perhaps in Parliament with the connection between general society and our armed forces. The hon. Gentleman rightly said that fewer and fewer people have served in Her Majesty's armed forces. I never have. However, when I was in Kosovo recently, a senior member of the Royal Green Jackets said that they preferred defence spokesmen who had never served in the armed forces because they came to the job with no preconceptions. That is not a criticism of the hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith), but there is some truth in the remark.
The new intake of Members of Parliament shows that there is increasingly less connection with the armed forces. In yesterday's debate, only one member of 1997 intake made a speech. The hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) spoke very well. The hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) made some important contributions, and I contributed. I see that the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Savidge) is in his place. Perhaps we will hear from him later. My party is as bad as the others. Members of the new intake do not have the same connection to the armed forces that others had in the past. It is therefore important that the armed forces parliamentary scheme works well. I am a proud graduate of that scheme—I am wearing the scheme's tie today.
I pay tribute to Sir Neil Thorne for his excellent work over many years on the scheme. It is notable that when Lord Robertson became Secretary of State for Defence after the general election, the number of people involved in the scheme was increased from two hon. Members for the Army, the Navy, the Air Force and the Marines to five hon. Members for each of those services. However, it is sometimes difficult to fill those places with new or experienced hon. Members. By its very nature, the armed forces parliamentary scheme is geared towards hon. Members who already have an interest in defence. So the Government should take a lead in making defence more
898
relevant, particularly to newer, younger hon. Members who may have a constituency interest or an interest in the cadet services or the Territorial Army.
I turn to another parliamentary group—the defence study group. I went to Germany with that group and the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay), who is not in his place, has also been associated with it. The defence study group is funded by the Ministry of Defence, but is largely based in another place. There is an important need for it to become more involved with the House of Commons and to encourage a greater interest in defence matters. That also applies to the wider community.
The Minister mentioned the cadet forces which comprise 128,000 young people. He paid tribute to the adult instructors and I join him in that. I was honoured to take the salute of the Severn branch Trafalgar Day celebrations in Ross-on-Wye in my constituency last weekend. I met 120 or so sea cadets from all over the south west. They were there because they wanted to become involved in the Royal Navy and the adults that instructed them and looked after them were doing a fine job. However, the cadet services remain short of resources. I have been told by sea cadet groups how difficult they find warship visits. Perhaps the Minister could ensure that when there are ship visits around the coast of our country and at places such as the Pool of London, where HMS Belfast is based, sea cadet groups all over the country are informed of those visits and given an opportunity to visit these ships.
Mr. John Bercow: Does not the declining interest in defence reflect the widespread belief that as a subject defence is of less political salience than was once the case? Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the crucial point is that although the sources of the threat to our national security might have changed, the fact of it has not?
Mr. Keetch: The hon. Gentleman is right. I was born in 1961 and I was brought up to suspect that there might be a war with Russia. That has changed since the end of the cold war, but the threats to our society, internationally and technologically, through terrorism and different types of warfare, are greater now than they have ever been. We must engage young people in particular and make them understand that those current and increasing threats did not affect previous generations.
We need to ensure that cadet forces have proper access to military assets throughout the United Kingdom. We also need to ensure that cities and communities continue to be associated with the armed forces. I am surprised at the decline in the number of twinnings between warships and cities and communities. The city of Hereford lost its ship HMS Antelope, which was sunk in the Falklands. Every other city connection with ships sunk in the Falklands has been re-established with other vessels, but Hereford has not.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Dr. Lewis Moonie): Why not?
Mr. Keetch: The Minister asks why not. I have written to him before to ask him about that. Perhaps he will investigate. Those twinnings where forces marched through the streets with bayonets fixed are very important.

899
Particularly as the armed forces are declining, we need to ensure that those connections are maintained and developed.
I now turn to Gulf war syndrome which was mentioned in yesterday's debate. The hon. Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) drew attention to the difference between the announcement made the other day about compensation for new-variant CJD victims and the way in which successive Governments have dealt with Gulf war syndrome. There have been approximately 80 deaths resulting from new-variant CJD. We deplore that and we welcome the compensation. but there have been up to 400 deaths as a result of Gulf war syndrome and as yet there has been no public inquiry. I am not saying that one is needed, but the Government should consider the kind of no-fault interim compensation that was paid to haemophiliacs. We welcome the fact that some 7,500 former Japanese prisoners of war may receive some compensation. I hope that the victims of Gulf war syndrome do not have to wait as long as they have.
Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: I have taken an interest in former Japanese prisoners of war and have been a member of the all-party group for more years than I care to remember with no progress whatever being made. Has the hon. Gentleman had any indication that we are likely to get what we have sought for so long?
Mr. Keetch: The Prime Minister mentioned this very recently. I pay tribute to the right hon. Gentleman for his work. My hon. Friends the Members for Winchester (Mr. Oaten) and for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) and the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Bell) have also made important progress on this. It has genuinely been an all-party group. If there is an announcement next week, I am sure that it will be welcomed by hon. Members on both sides of the House.
Let me turn to two other issues that have been exercising people recently. The Minister's review of the position of the gardeners is welcome, particularly as possible cuts in the number of gardeners were announced at the same time as news of £340 million being spent on MOD upgrades. Perhaps it was unfortunate timing. We certainly welcome that. I also congratulate the Minister on his response to an Adjournment debate in Westminster Hall yesterday concerning the protection of graves at sea on HMS Prince of Wales and HMS Repulse. There has been concern among hon. Members on both sides of the House that international protection is required.
I have one final point about Gulf war syndrome. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) has passed on to me a letter dated 26 October this year from a gentleman in Hampshire who is a Gulf war veteran. It would be wrong for me to name him as I have been unable to contact him, so I shall use his words without identifying him. He writes:
Many Veterans are now suffering Illnesses and Disabilities which, as time goes on, leave them more and more incapable to carry on with normal life…The Government has recently announced a compensation package for Victims of CJD, and quite rightly so…But if you look at the figures…we are still suffering…The Government has stated on many occasions that it is doing all it can to help Gulf Veterans, but I can assure you that this is not true
I hope that this matter will be dealt with.
900
Let me now say a few words about procurement. We had a long and interesting debate on the subject last week, but I wish to comment on what the Secretary of State said yesterday. Just after my intervention on the type 45, he said that the type 45 will have
a vertical launcher suitable for a variety of weapons including Tomahawk.—[Official Report, 1 November 2000; Vol.355, c. 728.]
My hon. Friends and I have been calling for that for some time, even when in May the Secretary of State said that there were no plans for the type 45 to have a land attack capability. I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman has changed his mind and that he is listening in to us.
I also welcome the announcements on shipbuilding. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Fife has said on more than one occasion that the judgment of Solomon is needed in relation to shipbuilding orders. The balance was broadly right in respect of the orders that were announced last week, but there are some serious disadvantages. The shipyards in Appledore in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett) has not yet received anything. I hope that the Government will ensure that the United Kingdom retains a variety of shipyards throughout the country with the ability to build warships. Mention has already been made of the carriers and the aircraft to go on them. Of course, any aircraft carrier is only as good as the aircraft that it carries. We therefore look forward to the decision on whether we will continue with the joint strike fighter. We must ensure that, in choosing our carriers, we do not do what we did with the Invincible class and choose something that is too small and cannot carry enough aircraft. We must consider what size our carriers are going to be.
I shall move on to an element of procurement that I mentioned in our debate last week, namely the use of the Duro vehicle for the vertical communications system, about which I have tabled parliamentary questions today, as the Minister will have noticed. May I refresh the memories of hon. Members who were in the House last week as well as those who were not.
Dr. Moonie: This is the hon. Gentleman's hobby horse.
Mr. Keetch: The Minister says that the system is a hobby horse of mine, but it is £8 million-worth of hobby horse, and I am trying to get a few answers on it. Indeed, I wrote to the Secretary of State about the matter on 10 October, but have still not had an adequate answer.
We are building a new kind of vertical communications system that will go in the back of a vehicle and will be deployed on a Hercules or a C-17 to support our forces. Used in earnest, I suppose that it is the kind of communication system which, on the battlefield, would be next to headquarters. Having made a decision and put down a specification for the system, the Government have chosen two suppliers, but have allowed them both to choose which vehicle they want. For some reason, instead of choosing a Land Rover, an Alvis or a Leyland Daf, they chose a vehicle from Switzerland. In his reply to me last week, the Minister said:
The vertical communications system is based on the Duro vehicle which was proposed to the competitors because no other vehicle has the configuration to take the system and still be transportable by air.—[Official Report, 26 October 2000: Vol. 355, c. 486]
I must press the Minister on that. Is he saying that those vehicles are so unique that they could not be produced by Land Rover or Leyland Daf? If they are so unique,

901
why are 2,000 of them left doing nothing in Switzerland and why has no other nation bought them? We need to find out why £8 million is being spent on a Swiss vehicle, when UK vehicles probably could have been sourced.
If we get into service in the British Army a vehicle that may be cheap, but has not gone through any evaluations or testing that Land Rovers and Leyland Dafs have to go through, it will become part of the Army's green fleet and will be available to be bought by other NATO nations without having been tested first. That is why I have tabled seven questions on the matter.
Mr. Crispin Blunt: I want to make sure that I am clear about what the hon. Gentleman has said. I presume that he is not advocating that the British Army and the Ministry of Defence should not seek the best value for money on each contract. If they have to buy overseas, they should do so, as that is in the best interests of the armed forces. Work should not be directed unnecessarily to the UK, as that costs the MOD money and takes money away from UK equipment.
Mr. Keetch: The hon. Gentleman is right that we should go for best value for money. However, time and again in the House we hear of substandard equipment that is not up to the job. I would like to know under what specification the vehicle was ordered and whether other UK manufacturers had an opportunity to tender, as some of them say that they did not. I would certainly like some answers about that contract.
Regarding procurement, Bowman was announced yesterday. We should not hold our breath on Bowman, about which there has been a long, arduous tale, but the Government have, at long last, acted. I do not agree with those who say that £200 million was wasted on the project, as some of the money that has already been spent could be used in future developments. That is what the Minister said last week, for which I pay him handsome tribute.
The hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford spoke about recruitment, but he rushed over the matter, saying that recruitment figures are good. It is true that there is record recruitment and 25,000 people are coming in. However, one area of recruitment is sadly not right—our armed forces' ability to recruit people from our ethnic minorities. The proportion of ethnic minorities in our armed forces is currently hovering at only about 1 per cent and recruiters have failed to reach Government targets.
I have recently attended several recruitment fairs in my constituency and elsewhere that have been organised by branches of the armed forces. Those evenings are enjoyable. They bring together business people, local councillors and members of the community and are undoubtedly successful. However, they clearly do not reach the members of our ethnic communities, which they should be doing. The Government are now recruiting in Fiji, where many excellent members of the armed forces come from, and perhaps the best loved regiment in our armed forces is the Gurkhas. Ironically, however, we are unable to recruit large numbers of people from ethnic communities in our own cities. Whatever the Government's policy is, clearly it is not working, so I hope that they will look again at their recruitment methods in that area.
Retention is a major problem and yesterday we heard a lot about the problem of married quarters. In the continuous attitude survey for service leavers, the effect of service on family life was the most frequently cited
902
reason for leaving the armed services. Whether or not we have served in the armed forces, we all know that that effect is huge, but much could be done to improve it. Like Conservative Front-Bench Members, I welcome Government moves which have begun to change the ethos, and congratulate the Government on that.
However, the Government could do more, such as setting a minimum consistent standard that could be applied to facilities in all garrison bases. Why do some bases have huge sports halls, while others do not? Surely, we should have a national audit of our bases and should try to ensure that there is a common standard for the kind of facilities that they have. We should review the qualification for married quarters to include permanent partnerships, abolish the current march-in, march-out regulations and replace the contract cleaning of voids paid from an element of rent. We should review the moving and relocation allowances, ensure that pay for them is better and ring-fence funding for family support. For every family on every base, there should be a family officer able to look after the care of armed forces.
We have heard from Members on both sides of the House that we have the best armed forces in the world. We are recruiting them well, they are being equipped well—and I hope, equipped better—but, if they continue to leave, our ability to do what we have done over the past few months will end. Retention is crucial to our armed forces, and, although the Government are starting to move ahead, there is still a long way to go.
4.27 pm
Mr. Mike Gapes: I apologise for not being here yesterday, but there is serious flooding in my constituency. The river Roding has burst its banks and I had to visit a number of my constituents and see the damage to their homes.
I speak as a member of the Select Committee on Defence, and it is important to put on the record the fact that our Chairman my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) could not participate in our debate, as he is on parliamentary duty in Hungary. He asked that that information be conveyed to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I also have a constituency interest in some matters that have been discussed. As a member of the Defence Committee, I welcome yesterday's announcement on Bowman. However, as Member of Parliament for Ilford, South, yesterday was a sad day for me because it confirmed what has been apparent for a long time.
My constituents were supposed to manufacture the new system. According to the Archer consortium, the designated manufacturing site was going to be the former Plessey site in Ilford where in 1948, 10,000 people were making defence equipment. In the second world war there were bomb attacks all round Ilford to try to hit the Plessey factory and its underground tunnels. Ultimately, that factory was bought by Siemens and then British Aerospace. Following British Aerospace's failure to deliver on the Archer project, and the way in which the work force in my constituency were sold an illusion that there would be 700, 800 or perhaps even 1,000 jobs for many years, BAE Systems, having acquired several other factories in the Essex and Kent area, announced that it was restructuring its operations and that from February, the Ilford site would be closed.
That means the end of my constituency's continuous 80-year association with defence manufacturing. It must be placed on the record that Ilford and people living in

903
Ilford made a major contribution to the defence of the United Kingdom through their work in the defence industries over many years. It is sad that it has come to this—which is the fault not of the present Government but of the fiasco of the Bowman project, its delays and all the things that are dealt with in the Select Committee's report on major procurement projects. We are not discussing that today, but I must place the fact on the record.
I intervened on the Minister on a point arising from the inquiry that we conducted into Operation Bolton and the no-fly zones in Iraq. The Committee's report and the Government's response are among the documents that are available for the debate. When we visited the facilities in Kuwait, the Ali Al Salem air base, we saw the great contrast in facilities in the region. There is an enormous contrast between the facilities that our personnel have to inhabit there and the facilities available to the personnel of the United States and to our personnel in Saudi Arabia.
I know that the Secretary of State has seen that; he has visited the region. I know that pressure has been applied and discussions have been held with the Kuwaiti Government about the standard of accommodation. In his response, the Minister said that things would improve soon. The facilities are not British Government-owned property. The building has been made available by the Kuwaiti Government for use by our personnel, but it is not adequate. The washing and sleeping facilities resembled the worst kind of 1930s hospital accommodation. They did not look in any way adequate, particularly given the extreme temperatures in Kuwait. It will be a pleasant day when we finally get good accommodation for our service personnel, who are doing a vital job in Kuwait in enforcing the no-fly zones against Saddam Hussein's brutal, expansionist and fascist regime.
I shall spend much of my time talking about European defence and the lessons arising from the Kosovo report that the Select Committee published the week before last—but before I do that, may I concur with the remarks of the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Keetch) about ethnic minority recruitment. The Select Committee has just started another inquiry into armed forces personnel. Yesterday we took evidence from the air marshal, the second sea lord and other leading figures in the armed forces about recruitment of ethnic minorities and women to the respective services.
One important issue is how we get young people from inner cities, and from cities generally, to go into the armed forces. There is good ethnic minority recruitment to the cadet services, yet that has not yet been translated through. We need to find role models in our armed forces. For example, the United States had Colin Powell. We need people in senior positions in our forces and services who act in the same way as people have in the media and, increasingly, in other professions, including the judiciary. Even in the Metropolitan police, senior black and Asian figures are coming through.
In the armed forces, we must have that relatively soon. If we do not, we will not tap into the great interest that might exist among many of our black and Asian British citizens. They might recognise that interest if they could see that they would not suffer discrimination and
904
ostracism by the people that they had to work with, but would be able to progress to senior positions in our armed services.
Mr. Blunt: I hope that the hon. Gentleman does not expect the armed forces to turn things round overnight. I know that under the current Administration, huge efforts are going into that area. I welcome the results in the Army cadet force, which will lead into Army recruitment—but inevitably, it will be a gradual process. It was a priority of Sir Malcolm Rifkind when he was Secretary of State for Defence. Policies were put in place then, particularly with regard to the Household Division, but do not expect the proportion to go from 1 per cent. to 5 or 10 per cent.—which is probably a more realistic figure, representing the size of the young population—immediately. I know that the armed forces are trying. Let us please give them credit for what they are doing.
Mr. Gapes: It is important to recognise that change will take time, but the problem we face is that the targets set by the armed forces themselves are not yet being met. The inquiry that our Committee is establishing will investigate the reasons, and I hope that we will be able to discuss it. That is not a criticism of the leadership of the services or the MOD. There is a new commitment under this Government in terms of targets, encouragement and recruitment, but we must address the other barriers.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: My hon. Friend is right. Targets on recruitment have not been met, but is he aware—I am sure that the Select Committee is aware of it—that the promotion of black and ethnic minority service men to higher ranks is very rare? There are very few at a high level in the services. There is a need for further investigation into the issue of promotion.
Mr. Gapes: That is one of the issues that the Select Committee will consider. We have just begun the new inquiry, and I hope that in a few months' time, we will be able to have a whole debate on it.
In yesterday's debate, there was a lot of what I can only describe as hysterical Europhobia with regard to European security and defence identity, or European security and defence policy. I was surprised by the comments of the Conservative Front-Bench spokesman, the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies), who seems to have been reincarnated as a rabid Eurosceptic. In his previous incarnation, he always struck me as one of the most pro-European Conservatives. Perhaps, to preserve their position in the modern Conservative party, Members take the view that they must make over-the-top, hysterical remarks about all things European.
The Kosovo conflict, and the Select Committee's recent report, drew attention to the fact that if we are to be serious about defence matters in Europe, we must address a number of important operational and equipment questions. It appears from the evidence that we received and from our conclusions that, basically, the Europeans cannot operate in any way in any conflict situation without the involvement of the United States.
Paragraph 313 of the report says:
Overall, Operation Allied Force demonstrated just how far the European NATO nations are from having a capability to act without massive US support. This deficit is recognised and acknowledged by the European Allies, and some measures are in hand to address

905
the major shortfalls under NATO's Defence Capabilities Initiative. Kosovo reminded us just how critical it is that this programme is backed by political will and adequate financial resources. Its successful implementation will also demand a high level of European political co-operation.
I would welcome it if the Conservative party became part of that European political co-operation and consensus in trying to make our defence capabilities in Europe more effective. In my opinion, the greatest threat to the future of European defence and to NATO does not come from Europe or any European politician, but from the election platform of the United States Republican party. I suggest that anyone who doubts that goes on to the internet and clicks on the policy positions adopted by the Republicans over the past three or four years, and on the speeches of Condoleeza Rice, who is the senior policy adviser to George W. Bush. I hope that if that party's policy is implemented, sense will prevail among the American electorate or the wiser heads in the State Department and the Defence Department. If they go ahead with ballistic missile defence, they will cause the worst crisis in relations between Europe and the United States that we have seen for more than 20 years.
I am not encouraged by the remarks of the hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith), the shadow defence spokesman, who seems to be whipping up hostility to the idea of Europe increasing its defence capabilities, and acts as a cheerleader for the unilateral deployment of ballistic missile defence—which we know will have serious consequences for relations between the United States, Russia and China, and for the future of arms control, the strategic arms reduction treaties and many other things. That worries me enormously, especially given Russia's key role in ending the Kosovo conflict, to which the Select Committee referred in its report, and the key role of diplomatic efforts, in co-ordination with Russia, if we are to achieve a transformed Balkans that can become part of Europe.
The geographical position of Serbia is central to those efforts, and our relations, as west Europeans, with Russia are crucial in influencing what happens between the Serbs and their neighbours. The last thing that we need now is global unilateralism from the United States, which encourages conservatism and reaction in Russia, which then leads to irredentist positions among the Serbs and their neighbours in the Balkans. That would be an absolute disaster.
My hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson), the Chairman of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, talked about NATO enlargement and widening European security. We should now seize the opportunity presented by the half-completed revolution in Serbia and the democratic transition following the death of the fascist Tudjman in Croatia. I was in Croatia in June and met many far-sighted, good people there. The Croatian Government have invited Serbs back to Krajina and are standing up to the hard right. Even though they are a fragile coalition Government, they are doing their very best. We need to encourage those forces.
That requires the United States to be engaged in Europe, not to withdraw its forces unilaterally from Bosnia or the Kosovo area—contrary to what George W. Bush seems to want. We need both wings of NATO—its European pillar and the United States—to work together with the Russians to rebuild security in the
906
Balkans region. Those issues are fundamental to the future of the defence policies that we, as a Government, bring forward during the next few years.
The hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford referred to gratuitous United Nations involvement. I do not believe that our involvement in the UN is gratuitous. I do not believe that those unarmed British military observers whom the Select Committee met on the Iraq-Kuwait border, the UNSCOM mission, protected by Bangladeshi troops under an Irish commander, and including Senegalese, Russians, Americans and Canadians, are gratuitous. This country should be proud of that important international security and peacekeeping role.
Similarly, what we are doing in Sierra Leone is vital. We should be proud that we are saving black African children from having their arms mutilated and their heads cut off. We should be proud of the fact that when the UN has difficulties it comes to us and says, "Please help." It knows that we have professional armed forces and brave people who are prepared to put their lives at risk to provide international peace and security.
We need to talk not about "gratuitous" UN involvement, but about how to strengthen the UN. We need to talk about how we as a permanent member of the Security Council can work to strengthen the UN bodies that deal with such matters, so that we do not have to rely on NATO or regional alliances or coalitions of the willing, but can build permanent international structures for peace and security. The UN is important. The European defence capability initiative and the ESDP are important. Above all, none of that would be possible without the men and women of our armed forces and their families who support them.
4.46 pm
Mr. Michael Howard: I am afraid that, like the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes), I, too, have to apologise for the fact that I was not in the Chamber yesterday. I was attending an important meeting in my constituency, which was called to consider some of the lingering consequences of world war two which still affect our part of Kent.
I want to take this opportunity to place on record the enormous pleasure that my constituents and I have had in recent months in welcoming the Gurkhas to their new quarters in Shorncliffe in my constituency. That welcome has been warm and genuine, and the Gurkhas have made an outstanding impression, as the House would expect. I have no doubt that they will be continue to be much valued members of our local community for a long time to come.
Next week, the United States will elect a new President. It is almost inevitable that the new Administration, whoever heads it, will want to review the United States contribution to the defence of Europe and the role of NATO. That review will take place at a time when the Atlantic partnership is under strain. That partnership has not only been good for Europe and north America but has been one of the greatest forces for good in the world as a whole during the past 50 years. It continues to have the potential to be a force for good during the next 50 years, but there are forces at work on both sides of the Atlantic that are tending to drive Europe and north America apart. Those forces of geography, demography and trading rivalry are deep-seated. If they are not to prevail, a considerable effort of political will needs to be mobilised.

907
We must seek to minimise the points of friction, not to add to them. Yet at this critical time, the Government of the United Kingdom—which, under Governments of whichever political party has traditionally been the strongest promoter of that partnership—have embarked on a defence initiative that will, in my view, inevitably exacerbate the strains and increase the risks. The reasons for that adventure, which involves a complete Government U-turn, have never been explained.
After the Amsterdam Council, in June 1997—although my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) referred to this in yesterday's debate, it is important and bears repetition—the Prime Minister told the House:
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. We therefore resisted unacceptable proposals from others.—[Official Report, 18 June 1997; Vol. 296, c. 314.]
I do not think that, when the Prime Minister said that, he was being hysterically Europhobic or rabidly Eurosceptic—to use the phrases just used by the hon. Member for Ilford, South. The only difference is that Conservative Members still think that what the Prime Minister said then was right. We think that he was being sensible. It is the Prime Minister and his Labour colleagues who now think that he was wrong, although they have yet to explain the reason for the change.
What we are now faced with is precisely what the Government resisted in 1997. The European Union and the Western European Union are to merge; the unrealistic common defence policy is to be developed; and the proposals which were unacceptable at Amsterdam and were to be resisted have now been embraced. We can only speculate on the reasons for the volte face. By far the most credible explanation is that the Prime Minister, frustrated by his inability to smuggle the United Kingdom into the single currency, and desperately casting round for some other way of establishing his credibility as a good European, identified defence as the only way forward.
Therefore, the Prime Minister signed up at St. Malo to defence co-operation "inside and outside" NATO. He also signed up to the Cologne declaration which calls for the European Union to
have the capacity for autonomous action, backed up by credible military forces
and
the means to decide to use them.
Since then, the Prime Minister has signed up to further agreements at Helsinki and at Feira in Portugal. At Helsinki, it was decided not only to develop autonomous European military capabilities, but to set up new European security institutions. Since Helsinki, we have seen the establishment of an interim political and security committee, an interim military committee and a military staff. All those are explicitly and deliberately set up outside the framework of NATO. They will duplicate structures that already exist in NATO. To what end?
Mr. Gapes rose—
Mr. Howard: I hope that the hon. Gentleman can provide an answer.
Mr. Gapes: Is it not a fact that, as the Select Committee concluded, all those new initiatives are about effective crisis management, and that they do not in any way duplicate or replace the continuation of work in NATO? Is not the main issue how we increase the ability to deploy 50,000 to 60,000 of the 2 million members of the forces in the European countries? That is what the initiatives are about.
Mr. Howard: All that can be done, and should be done, within the framework of NATO. There is absolutely no reason whatever why it cannot be done within the framework of NATO. That was what the Prime Minister told the House in 1997. I am wholly in favour of a more effective European defence effort. The European members of NATO should do much more than they do now to shoulder the burden of the alliance.
By far the most effective thing that most of the European members of NATO could do is to spend more money on defence and to spend it more sensibly. The majority of European Union countries now spend less than 2 per cent. of their gross domestic product on defence. Eight member states, including Germany and Spain, spend 1.6 per cent. or less on defence. The United States spends 3.2 per cent. of its GDP on defence. The very last thing that is needed in this set of circumstances is to fritter away those scarce resources on an unnecessary new set of bureaucratic arrangements that duplicate what we already have in NATO. Why is that being done?
Let us be clear about the logic behind the developments. The only set of circumstances in which the new capability could need to be used outside NATO and without recourse to NATO's assets would be in a situation in which the United States refused to allow those assets to be used, and not simply in a situation in which the United States itself did not want to get involved. In such a situation, the European members of NATO would be perfectly able to act within NATO and would be able to use NATO's command structure and NATO's relevant assets, but without the direct involvement of the United States. The only situation in which all those elaborate arrangements would be necessary is one in which the United States not merely did not wish to take part, but was prepared to veto any NATO involvement.
In the past 50 years, almost all our differences with other NATO members have been with other European members of the alliance, not with the United States. It was some of the other European members of the alliance who had difficulties over the Gulf war. It was the Belgians who refused to sell us bullets. It is with other European members of the alliance that we now—now—have differences over Iraq.
I have been trying to think of occasions in that period when we and other Europeans have wanted to take action that the United States might have wanted to veto if we had wanted to act through NATO. It may be that my memory has deceived me, but I can think of only one such example—Suez. Are the Government, with their

909
European partners, going to all this trouble so that Europe could mount another Suez campaign without the involvement of the United States?
Mr. Wilkinson: My right hon. and learned Friend has taken that question out of my mouth. His exposition is most cogent. Surely the great deficiency of Suez was that it was not squared with the Americans before the operation was undertaken, and that, without their wholehearted support throughout, it was doomed to failure from the start.
Mr. Howard: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend.
Mr. Gapes: I was also going to refer to Suez, but shall refer instead to the other example—the United States early sabotage of the Carrington-Cutileiro proposals, which might have led to a different outcome in Bosnia.
Mr. Howard: That is a matter of considerable controversy, and the interpretation that the hon. Gentleman puts on it is by no means universally accepted. I think that Bosnia could well have been an example of an instance in which the United States did not itself want to be actively involved, but would not have wanted to veto any involvement by the European members of the alliance. That is the way in which we could, and perhaps should, have proceeded in Bosnia.
The truth, of course, is that what is happening is the creation of a European army. It is all part of the drive towards a single European state. I am going to quote the President of the Commission. My hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green was too restrained to quote him yesterday, but I do not think that this debate would be complete if we did not place on record the view of the President of the European Commission—who was hand-picked by the Prime Minister for the job. The Prime Minister's candidate for the job has memorably said:
When I was talking about the European army, I was not joking. If you don't want to call it a European army, don't call it a European army. You can call it Margaret. You can call it Mary-Ann.
The United States has, so far, reacted to these developments with dignity and tact. We all know that there is deep disquiet in private, but, in public, the comments have been measured. In the past, that has led to somewhat arid exchanges across the Floor of the House—some of which we saw earlier today. In the past, I myself have taken part in such exchanges, in which one speaker quotes one part of a speech from a senior American, and another speaker quotes another part. I do not want to engage in that type of terminological analysis today; I do, however, want to ask the Minister some very specific questions.
In his much-quoted speech of 10 October, quoted again by the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson), United States Defence Secretary William Cohen proposed unifying the EU and NATO systems under a European security and defence planning system. He said:
It would be highly ineffective, seriously wasteful of resources, and contradictory to the basic principles of close NATO EU co-operation that we hope to establish, if NATO and the EU were to proceed along the path of relying on autonomous force planning structures.
Thus it is hard to conceive of any agreement based on logic, practicality, or effectiveness, that European Allies who are also EU members shall proceed along separate defence planning tracks—one within NATO, the other within the EU—to prepare for the same range of crisis response operations.
910
Yet that, surely, is exactly what is being done. Autonomous force planning structures are being set up, and separate defence planning tracks are being established. What is the Government's response to the reasonable concerns expressed by the United States Defence Secretary?
Mr. Donald Anderson: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is falling into his own trap in the matter of selective quotations. Mr. Cohen's starting point was a very warm response to the European developments that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is now dismissing. He quite properly said that there should not be duplication of planning staffs but he agreed that there should be a strategic planning staff at European level. That is precisely the policy that the Government are following. There is a debate within Europe, and others will want to go further, but it is surely wrong to dismiss those who voice a different opinion. We have made it clear that we do not want duplication, but the Americans themselves assume that Europe should have a planning function at a strategic level.
Mr. Howard: But it could all be done within NATO. If we do not want duplication, why have a political and a military committee, and a military staff outside NATO? They are, in essence and inevitably, duplicating functions that should remain in NATO. There is no need for them.
Mr. Anderson: The right hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned the Balkans. Miss Rice has made it clear that it may not be in the US strategic interest to be involved in the Balkans, but because of migration flows and the turbulence across frontiers, Europe certainly does have an interest there.
Mr. Howard: I accepted that a few moments ago. I accept that there may be situations—the Balkans may be an example—in which European members of NATO would want to get involved but the United States would not. That could all be done within the framework of NATO.
I have not quite finished with Mr. Cohen's speech. He went on to say that the Deputy Supreme Allied Commander Europe—DSACEUR—should be at the heart of EU-NATO relations. In this, he was echoing our Defence Committee, which proposed that DSACEUR should have the right to attend all meetings of the European military committee. The Government's response to that proposal was typically disingenuous. They said:
The Government agrees that DSACEUR's attendance at the EU Military Committee will, in many cases, be essential, not least to ensure transparency between the EU and NATO.
Of course, that was not agreement with the Defence Committee's proposal. It was not even an answer to it. I should be grateful if the Minister could listen for a moment, because I want an answer to this specific question: will DSACEUR have the right to attend all meetings of the European military committee, as proposed by the Defence Committee, and if not, why not?
Is it the case, as reported in The Sunday Telegraph this week, that the Government have conceded that the holder of the post of director general of the military staff should be French? Would not that symbolise the way in which the Government now dance to a French tune on these matters? Given France's history of ambivalence towards

911
NATO and the growing stridency of the anti-American rhetoric indulged in by French leaders, would not that give the clearest signal to the Americans of the real nature of this enterprise?
The Sunday Telegraph also suggested that Pentagon chiefs have made it clear that they would be unwilling to share intelligence data with the new EU alliance—another point touched on by the hon. Member for Swansea, East. I do not expect the Government to comment on intelligence matters, but is there not a real danger that that will indeed be the American position if these events proceed, especially given recent history, including what happened in the Kosovo campaign?
These are serious questions. I hope that we can have some answers. My charge against the Government is that they are jeopardising the relationship that has always stood our country, our continent and the world in good stead, by committing themselves to a wasteful, pretentious and ill-thought-through European enterprise. It may yet turn out to be their greatest act of treachery.
5.7 pm
Ms Dari Taylor: First, I apologise for my absence yesterday. I was listening to the debate but began to feel unwell, so I had to leave halfway through the opening speech of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence.
Let me make it clear how much I admire our British forces. Like the majority in Britain, I am very proud of their action and I believe that they make an outstanding contribution on our behalf throughout the world. I am more than pleased that the Government are acknowledging that and spending billions. This is the first time for many years that so much has been spent, and it is long overdue.
I want briefly to express my pleasure and pride in the fact that two of the amphibious landing craft are to be built in my region, in the north. That, alongside the order for tanks, has made people feel that they have a proud future in Great Britain in which they, too, will be seen as supporting the activities of our armed forces. I am pleased, of course, to have the opportunity to contribute to a debate on defence and the armed forces for the second time in a week. That gives me real pleasure.
My intention today is to welcome, although with great caution, the clear support that the Government are now giving to the principle of equal opportunities in the armed forces' selection and recruitment policy. At long last, that approach will give all people the right and opportunity to serve their country in many roles, although not 100 per cent. of roles are open to people in that way. I hope that, by the end of this Parliament or the beginning of the next, women will have the right to apply for selection for 100 per cent. of roles, and that fewer exclusion clauses will be put in their way.
I believe that people with the necessary talent and ability should be recognised and, if they are able to pass the rigorous selection criteria, they should be given the opportunity to serve. I am more than pleased that the Royal Air Force should have opened up 96 per cent. of all roles to women. The figure for the Army is 70 per cent., and for the Navy 73 per cent. That is a valid beginning to giving all those who choose to do so the opportunity to serve their country.
912
I am pleased that some people—although only some, as yet—are consigning to the dustbin the belief that only men can or should fight on the front line. The implicit belief has been that women are only able to care. I want to persuade the House that everyone, to varying degrees, is able both to fight and to care, and that recognition of that is long overdue.
Women were involved in active service in world war two. That fact has conveniently, been forgotten, by those who want to exclude women from 100 per cent. participation in the armed forces. It is shameful that only now is a formal commemorative statue to be built in remembrance of all the women who served in that conflict. Many women served on the front line in the second world war and many died, proud to give their lives for their country
Some hon. Members might claim that women are the weaker sex, that they must be protected, and that they represent a gender problem and a weak link in a combat team. They should read the accounts of those women who fought on active service between 1939 and 1945. If they did, they would be ashamed their wish to consign women to a secondary role rather than a primary one.
Convincing evidence of women's physical ability and dextrousness is evident in the work that women did in the munitions factories of the 1940s. The cosy, rosy picture of the little woman at home is also blown away by the history of the land army. The stereotypical perception of women is also called into serious question when one reads the history of mining. Women were miners and dug coal alongside men, and they participated in industry, education and politics. Despite their full achievement in all roles, women have been defined by some, conveniently and for far too long, in terms of the support given by "the back-room girl".
I remind the House—seriously but not entirely without humour—that behind every successful man there is often an even brighter and more convincing female. I am sad to say that successful women have to be twice as capable—and often twice as bright and determined—as the men with whom they compete.
The armed forces of tomorrow must not accommodate the stereotypical beliefs that I have described. Although I do not doubt that such beliefs are well meaning and serious, I know that women consider them to be patronising and undermining.
I am proud of the British armed forces, so I find it sad that sexism is writ large in the ethos of much of those forces. That sexism is perpetuated by the many who persist in regarding the forces as a man's world, where front-line combat—the acceptance of commands or roles that might cause one to die in action for one's country—is considered to be the right and prerogative of the male. My contention is that the approach of the armed forces should be that all people have the right and prerogative to choose to serve in roles that they fit and can accommodate. It is, of course, the right of the armed forces to select, without prejudice, people who have the talent, ability, suitability and the desire to serve. However, I believe that only when the selection process is fair as well as rigorous will the best be chosen.
There are, of course, changes taking place. The serious questions that impact on whether a woman should be allowed 100 per cent. participation in the armed forces are at last being asked. The Army is carrying out a study of

913
the effects on combat effectiveness of opening all roles to women. I warmly welcome this. I would not want any person to be selected for a role in the armed forces that they could not accommodate. I am assuming that the study will test and assess the extent to which combat roles are supported, disrupted or undermined by operating joint male and female forces. I believe that the tests used will assess whether mixed-gender forces will reduce the commitment of all in achieving the set target, which of course includes raising bayonets against an enemy or aggressor.
Valuable evidence—albeit not great in volume—from American studies and the Israeli army suggests that women in combat on the front line in action are as relevant to that action and show as much commitment to it as any male involved. That evidence is small in size but is a valued start with regard to providing evidence and information that will inform the debate on achieving equal opportunities in the armed forces. Inevitably, much is said about the training to achieve effective combat. Standards are set and they must be achieved if the Army is to survive any and all affronts.
People who participate in all parts of the armed forces have the talent and ability to do the job in hand. I am absolute in my belief that a commitment to equal opportunities must in no way compromise the performance of the force. Equally, I believe that a commitment to equal opportunities will not compromise the performance of the force. It is emphatically the case that when on active service in the Gulf or Kosovo, whether on a rescue or other mission, the whole team must be able to meet the standards required. There is no room, and there can never be any room, for a weak link. That fact is absolute. However, we must have knowledge about women's capabilities to judge whether they can maintain their combat roles under pressure. It is only when the roles are open to women and they are given a chance to prove their capabilities, to perform in training and under pressure, that we can assess accurately whether they should be selected for all front-line combat roles, such as in the Marines, in submarines or elsewhere.
The research provided for the Equal Opportunities Commission clearly states that equal opportunity becomes a valued tool when we recruit personnel. We must ensure that we define appropriate talent and select people of appropriate talent and standards, establishing effective training to ensure effective activity. The EOC believes that if we ensure appropriate selection, recruitment and training, the armed forces will get women who are capable of performing under pressure, and will, of course, also get men who are capable of performing under pressure.
The debate on equality and opportunity clearly turns on the requirement to select people who want to serve, who have the ability to do so and who, after training, prove that they are capable of doing so. When selection is approached in that way, women and men will serve alongside each other in the armed forces. My overwhelming hope is that many women will be given the right to command.
It saddens me to have to end on what I consider to be a note of some disdain. I was not in the House yesterday, as I explained, but I watched the monitor and I have read Hansard, and I am thoroughly unhappy about the comments of the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan). Much of what he said was not explicit, and I suggest to the House that that is cheating. We should say to each
914
other what we mean, and mean what we say to each other. In his comments, many of which were implicit, he made statements that I found thoroughly offensive. One comment—
Mr. Wilkinson: On a point of order. Is it normal for an hon. Member to make criticisms in that way? Perhaps the hon. Lady notified my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) that she was going to make critical remarks about him. He served in Her Majesty's armed forces for a long time, and his point of view was valid.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: First, I remind the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) that points of order should be addressed to the Chair.
I hope that the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Ms Taylor) will assure the House that she was not accusing the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) of being a cheat, which would be unparliamentary use of language. I underline the point that was made by the hon. Member for Ruislip—Northwood: strong criticism of an hon. Member should be preceded by a notification that it will be made.
Ms Taylor: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I did not inform the hon. Member for Blaby of my intentions. I saw him in the House this morning but, sadly, assumed that he would be here this afternoon. I am sorry about that. I most certainly did not use the word "cheat" in the way you feared.
I point out, with sincerity and concern, that yesterday the hon. Gentleman said that few of us had any real experience of war. In opening his remarks, the hon. Gentleman referred to the second world war and said that he regarded that as the real war. I am seriously concerned about that, and I shall send him a note about it. What is his perception of the Gulf war, the Falklands or the Balkans, especially the situation in Bosnia and Croatia during the early 1990s? The men and women in those conflicts believed that they were fighting in real wars. In our communities, the families and friends of those who died in those conflicts believe that those people fought in real wars.
The hon. Gentleman referred to women in ways that I found unfortunate and insulting. His speech implied that to allow women on to the front line and into the infantry would lower standards, and that involving women in those ways would help to undermine the ability of the infantry and fundamentally alter its capabilities. I should like to know—indeed, the House deserves to know—the source of the evidence to which the hon. Gentleman referred. I know of no such evidence. The House has been a victim of prejudice that was personal and patronising.
Mr. Blunt: The hon. Lady is entitled to her point of view, but I share the opinion of my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) about the involvement of women in the infantry and the fighting echelon which, in extremis, have to close with the enemy. I agree that it would be deleterious to the performance of the men if women served alongside them. We are entitled to our point of view. It is unfortunate that the hon. Lady should describe my hon. Friend's views as insulting to women. Both my hon. Friend and I are interested in the optimal

915
performance of the armed services. I should be grateful if the hon. Lady would not suggest that we believe anything else.
Ms Taylor: I made no such statement. I would not for one minute imply that the hon. Member for Blaby does not have the optimal interests of the armed services at heart. However, it is important that we all understand the impact of what we say—in this case, that women are seen as an undermining force.
I am pleased that the Ministry of Defence is beginning to address issues of talent and opportunity by participating in the equality debate. I am absolutely convinced that in future people will be selected to command and serve on the basis of their talent and ability. Now that the equality debate has been opened, that should be the focus of tomorrow's armed forces. I hope that it will be and that the House will support women who want the opportunity to serve their country in 100 per cent. of the roles performed by our armed forces.
Several hon. Members roseߞ
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I want to share some simple arithmetic with the House. There are 63 minutes left for Back-Bench contributions and seven hon. Members seeking to catch my eye. I hope that hon. Members will use the time as equitably as possible.
5.27 pm
Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: I listened with great interest to the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Ms Taylor). Equality and ability are obviously important to her, but she should also recognise the importance of suitability. I was a gunner in the armed forces. Many gunners manned the anti-aircraft sites, or ack-ack sites, outside the main cities. Although I was never in such a unit, I suspect that few women would have found such a role suitable. If they were rejected for such a job, that should not be regarded as discrimination. That would be unfair to people who take a professional view of the suitability of people of different sizes and abilities to handle the awful job of fighting on the front line. That has to be taken into account. The hon. Lady does not seem to have grasped that issue.
I am aware that other hon. Members want to speak, but I want to cover a little of the old ground and clear up the matter of Europe. I am an Atlanticist. I have lived in America and know that it is vital to this country in terms of trade—and the way in which it came to our rescue in the first and second world wars and again during the cold war. It is important that we should all see the American influence as part of the democratic way in which we, as a democratic nation, serve the cause of peace.
There are those involved in European security and defence who wish America to keep away and gradually disappear from playing a role in the defence of Europe. I notice that as an active member of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly. I have been a member of the Assembly for some 20 years, so I have seen it through the cold war. I have seen the initiatives that we have needed to take with the Russians both in the cold war and in peace. Some people may think that we can remove the
916
American presence by creating a European security and defence identity. To do so would have the effect of decoupling us from the United States, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) said. New methods of command and control and a new bureaucracy would be established. My right hon. and learned Friend quoted some of the comments made by French politicians, such as the Prime Minister and other senior officials. Their ideas would lead to the exclusion of the United States. That would be folly.
We still have an uncertain world to deal with. Wilfully to exclude America on the ground that we do not want it to dominate us would be wrong. One phrase was quoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) yesterday. The French European Affairs Minister said:
We do not agree with the Americanisation of the world…We are saying that together we can build a new superpower…and its name will be Europe.—[Official Report, I November 2000; Vol. 355, c. 743.]
It is not only people like that who speak in such terms. Some of my French colleagues whom I very much admire would disown such a statement, but the French have always been an unwilling partner in NATO. More recently, they have been more active and have played a useful role, but they have long wished to play some role that would strengthen Europe and, so they think, make Europe more independent and get rid of the American influence.
There are those who, because they want Great Britain to play what they regard as a more constructive role in the European Union, go along with those views. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe said, the Prime Minister has altered not only the tone but the words of his language. I do not believe that he or we ever contemplated that we would be playing some grandiose role in creating a new organisation that would ultimately distance Europe from America for political reasons and make it a political power—a big new European state.
It is not good enough for Labour Members to regard my comments as an example of Europhobia. I believe more than some of my hon. Friends that we should play a constructive role in Europe, but to me Europe is an economic organisation, not a political organisation that deals with defence in such a way that it rules out the sorts of co-operation to which we have been used.
Europe can obviously play its part in bringing together the disparate parts of Europe. Some countries are members of the European Union, some are not, and some are not involved in any of the western European organisations. The EU can perhaps help to coalesce the interests of the countries of Europe. It can do something that it has not yet grasped. If it wants to preserve the peace and stability of Europe and play its part in the world, it must rise to that responsibility by providing the money to fulfil those obligations.
The United States may get rather tired, fed up and critical of some of the things that we are doing. I am bound to say that some European countries have a lot more work to do in terms of security and defence. That is why my right hon. and learned Friend was right to quote the new setting of the decision to discuss the various organisations that would cut across the existing arrangements that have worked so well. The establishment of permanent political and military structures as soon as

917
possible after the Nice European Council is on the agenda. If that goes too far, it will not only create another bureaucracy but widen the gap between ourselves and the United States.
I hope that we will not hear in the Minister's reply or in Labour Members' speeches that the sentiments that I express are Europhobic. They are not. They are designed to face the reality of some of those influences in Europe who believe that a federal state with a European army is the way to guarantee the peace of Europe. There are countries in Europe that do not want to touch heights of commitment that we in Britain have. They want a security umbrella, but not necessarily in the form of a federation. In some countries—our own is one such—it would not be believed that, in this day and age, it is right that military command should be put under the umbrella of a federal government.
Federation is not an unworthy objective. After the US war of independence, the Americans tried to establish a federation; they failed, because the various states wanted to run their own affairs. It took almost 100 years to develop a federal state. With the differences that exist—in language, in history and in our systems of democracy—why should we assume that the only true path to security is increasingly to develop institutions that gradually undermine the sovereignty of individual nations?
Obviously, we can try to develop trade, common laws and so on to work for our mutual benefit, but to put under federal control foreign policy and its handmaiden—defence policy—with the consequence that all decisions on sending service personnel to fight would cease to be taken by national Governments, is to live in cloud cuckoo land.
We should learn from the American experience. If we want to develop a federal society in which such decisions are taken by a federal government and not by individual states, perhaps we should wait 100 years—we would be the better for it.
5.36 pm
Mr. Malcolm Savidge: Like many hon. Members, I follow my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence in paying tribute to the service and sacrifice of our armed forces in such theatres as the Balkans, Sierra Leone and Northern Ireland, where we have been fighting for peace and in defence of human rights and human life. I chose those three theatres because it is pleasing to see that there are better prospects for peace in them. I am sure that the whole House hopes that those prospects will flower.
I am sure, too, that all hon. Members will support the comments of the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Keetch), who paid tribute to the former prisoners of war of the Japanese. We welcome the Government's indication that, at long last, they will receive compensation.
In his speech yesterday, the shadow Secretary of State for Defence, the hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith), concentrated on two issues that he suggested would split NATO: the European security and defence identity and what he called BMD—ballistic missile defence. The right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) focused on the ESDI; I shall focus on BMD.
I was sorry to miss the speech made yesterday by the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell), because I had to chair a meeting. As ever,
918
his contribution was impressive and comprehensive. He made eloquently many of the points that I wanted to raise, so I shall abbreviate some of my remarks by referring to his.
The whole House agrees that national missile defence, or BMD, will have a massive influence on Britain. Although that will apply whoever is elected as the US President, there will be differences according to which of the two main candidates is successful. As neither has spelt out a detailed policy on the matter, I deduced what such policies might be. I relied in particular on articles written by their supporters and advisers and on discussions held by an all-party group that visited Washington. We spoke to members of both main parties and to people who held a broad spectrum of views on defence. I made use of a seminar convened by the Heritage Foundation, at which the shadow Secretary of State spoke and which was attended by several Conservative Members.
The rationale for NMD is the perceived threat that rogue states could obtain weapons of mass destruction and the missile delivery systems for them. The Select Committee on Foreign Affairs report records that the consensus of the expert evidence that it received was that both the extent and the immediacy of that threat had been massively hyped in the United States. The Committee suggested that political and commercial interests had perhaps been more important than a strategic, objective assessment. One contribution to the Heritage Foundation seminar seemed to imply that, as it used phrases such as "protect our cities" and "protect our families", appealing to the American frontier spirit—to which the gun lobby also tends to appeal—suggesting that the other party would be "weak on defence", and asking why anyone should object to the system, as it was purely defensive. People who use that last argument are rather like the person who says, "If I go out wearing a flak jacket wherever I go, I am not really being aggressive", and does so while carrying a sub-machine gun. However, I digress.
To return to my main argument, the perception is that the threat from rogue states has been gravely exaggerated—that the United States should not underestimate the enormous deterrent effect of its vast nuclear and conventional forces. As the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife said, even the most unpredictable and ruthless tyrant can have a very strong sense of self-preservation. However, I repeat what I have said previously in this House—that I do not underestimate any of the threats that face us. I realise that there is always a possibility that weapons of mass destruction and delivery systems could fall into the hands of a maniac who was simultaneously genocidal and suicidal.
On the rogue states situation, it must be a source of relief to us all that the political and diplomatic situation has improved to the point where, as a result of the improvement in North Korea and other states, our US allies are talking about "states of concern". The right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife enumerated that more fully.
The impression is that the Clinton presidency was perhaps largely pushed on NMD by the political factors that I mentioned earlier. It indicated that a decision on NMD would largely depend on objective criteria—such things as technical feasibility, the perceived threat, effects on arms control and diplomatic relations, and costs. One must assume that a Gore presidency would probably work on the same basis.

919
I hope that, when the new presidency sees the reduction in the threat by other means, it recognises that even limited national missile defence would have an effect on the anti-ballistic missile treaty, on the nuclear nonproliferation treaty and on arms control generally, and that it assesses the feasibility of such a defence—which ties in with cost, because so far we have had one dubious hit out of three—and reconsiders the whole idea of missile defence.
The failures of the tests so far are one of the reasons why supporters and advisers of Mr. Bush have given for going along with ballistic missile defence—by which they mean something more extensive than NMD—and I believe that that is why the shadow Secretary of State uses that particular phrase. This is a BMD that might be sea-launched, space-based and land-based, and could cover boost-phase, mid-phase and final-phase interception.
The first thing to recognise is that to develop such a system would be a total abrogation of the ABM treaty. Some of those who support such a course of action claim that that treaty no longer exists because the Soviet Union no longer exists. However, we are not talking about only one treaty. It should be remembered that when we reached the agreement, which Britain played a major part in achieving, at the end of the 2000 negotiations on the NNPT, part of what was agreed to by all states present was
preserving and strengthening the ABM treaty as a cornerstone of strategic stability and as a basis for further reductions in offensive weapons.
The Russians—or some Russians—have suggested that there could also be a connection between the ABM treaty and both the strategic arms limitation talks and the strategic arms reduction talks. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes) said, there is a real risk that we could undermine the whole arms control regime.
In a similar vein, even limited nuclear missile defence could have the danger of encouraging Russia to update its nuclear weapons or China to expand its. That would hardly be surprising, because extreme advocates of BMD already argue that it should be used against China. As the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife pointed out, if missile defence were up and running, who is to say that that lobby would not become increasingly vociferous? The right hon. and learned Gentleman also pointed out that if China were to expand its nuclear weapons capability, there would be a grave danger of a knock-on effect on a series of other countries in south-east Asia.
Some extreme exponents of BMD discount Chinese concerns—and the most extreme of them even discount Russian concerns—on the basis that neither country can afford to rival the US if it decides to expand its arsenals. However, the economic destabilisation—or, in one case, the further economic destabilization—of a major nuclear weapons state is extremely dangerous in itself and must also increase the dangers of the export of nuclear and/or missile technology at state or private criminal level.
Proponents of BMD talk about protecting US cities and families, but some of their rhetoric suggests that they would take a gung-ho adventurist approach to dealing with present or future nuclear weapons states in the
920
confidence that the US had an impenetrable missile shield. Unless the technology were infallible, those US cities and families—and US allies—might find themselves in greater jeopardy.
I am particularly concerned at the suggestion of boost-phase interception—sea-based or otherwise. That has been proposed not just by the Republican right—the former Defence Secretary, Harold Brown, and others have proposed the same idea in Foreign Affairs. The technical feasibility of firing from a ship is questionable, but it is undoubtedly true that to try to intercept in the less than five minutes of the boost phase is easier because the target is larger, slower, hot and no decoys can be used.
However, missiles would be dispersed around the world and in close proximity to nuclear weapon states. The boost phases last less than five minutes, so within how many seconds of suspected detection of the launch of a missile would a decision have to be taken to fire and intercept a missile? At what level of the chain of command would the decision be taken and how many seconds would there be to take it? If an intercept missile were accidentally fired towards a nuclear weapons state and the act were misinterpreted, what would the consequences be? Are we really suggesting that our safety for future centuries could be within a few seconds of such an accident? The sword of Damocles would seem rather safe by comparison.
To try to reduce a comparatively remote threat that can be reduced by other means, our US allies are in danger of increasing far greater threats—regional nuclear war, nuclear terrorism and nuclear weapons fired by accident or through misunderstanding—with the horrific possibility of an uncontrolled situation resulting in a holocaust.
The shadow Secretary of State suggested that the Government should lead Europe in discussions with our US allies on this issue. I agree with his suggestion, but I fear that he means that we should lead Europe in trying to persuade everyone to accept unconditionally whatever the US decides. That is not a good way to be an ally. I hope that, whoever becomes American President, the United Kingdom Government will—not necessarily publicly or by megaphone diplomacy—follow the suggestion of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs that we articulate our strong concerns about missile defence and encourage the US to seek other ways of reducing the threats that it perceives to exist. I hope that we shall consider seriously the suggestion made by Ambassador Jayantha Dhanapala, the UN Under- Secretary-General for Disarmament Affairs, which is supported by Kofi Annan. We should think about taking an initiative to get an international conference of all countries, including those nuclear weapons states that do not involve themselves in the present treaty negotiations, on the issue of weapons of mass destruction. The issue is of such vital importance that we cannot afford to waste time.
5.50 pm
Mr. Peter Viggers: The fact that I was able to speak on defence procurement a week ago on 26 October, at column 454, reconciles me to the fact that my time now, if I am to give colleagues a chance to speak, is tight. That being so, I shall restrict myself to one point.
I take as my text the report of the Select Committee on Defence, entitled "Lessons of Kosovo". There is much to be learned, and the report is a mine of learning. In paragraph 66, the report makes the obvious point that

921
working in co-ordination with other allies has advantages in terms of politics and in terms of military advantage. The rest of the report points out the difficulties and disadvantages of working as an alliance.
I shall quote from paragraph 281, which deals with alliance unity. It reads:
Unity was, in the end, the Alliance's greatest strength. At the same time it was NATO's weakest point. The perceived need to defend NATO's credibility was, in itself, a major factor in driving the process whereby the Alliance found itself painted into a corner by March 1999 from which its only way out was to pursue a military campaign against Serbia. Yet the maintenance of its unity was the factor which most significantly restricted the military options open to the Alliance to pursue an efficient and successful coercive strategy against Milosevic.
General Naumann, the former chairman of the Chiefs of Staff Committee, put it well when he said that
we did not have the consensus in the Alliance when we started to threaten the use of force…that is my lesson learned for crisis management. I am saying this openly and frankly, since I am certain the next crisis will come.
The lesson of Kosovo is that NATO is not the sum of its parts. It is far less than that. An operation such as Kosovo is full of false starts, blind alleys, contradictory actions, internal politics and sectarian passions. One lesson of Kosovo is that joint operations are infinitely complicated and that we in the United Kingdom need to be on our guard.
The second lesson of Kosovo is that we must maintain the Atlantic alliance. In Iraq, Kuwait, Bosnia and Kosovo, the situation was rescued by the United States. It was only when the United States became involved that those issues were resolved.
The third lesson is that Europe must strengthen its defence contributions for its own sake and for the sake of NATO. There are too many nations taking a cheap or a free ride. I shall refer to a document produced by the general rapporteur of the Economics and Security Committee of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, Mr. Paul Helminger. He points out that the United States contributes about $290 billion a year to defence whereas all the European countries together contribute only $180 billion.
Some nations—notably Belgium, Germany and Luxembourg—are very weak in their defence contributions. They are weak also in the sense that much of the money that they put in goes into conscripted forces rather than equipment. That is why the figures that I quoted last week—those of the European allies contributing only 60 per cent. of the resources of the United States but receiving 15 per cent. of the effect—are so important.
We must do more. We must do more in the House to draw attention to these items. I am happy to be a delegate to the NATO Parliamentary Assembly. Two of my colleagues there, who are both in the Chamber—my right hon. Friends the Members for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith) and for East Devon (Sir P. Emery)—make important contributions to the assembly. It is an assembly of the 19 NATO countries, with 17 associate countries. We work in five committees. I believe that the assembly is able to make a major contribution in the understanding of the problems and the ways in which NATO can co-operate more as we move forward.
There is much more that I could say, but in the interests of brevity and to allow my colleagues to contribute to the debate, I conclude on that point.
5.54 pm
Mr. John Wilkinson: Sixty years ago, the battle of Britain was coming to its conclusion. I am not sure that the country quite realised that we had won, but my constituents in Ruislip-Northwood are most appreciative of the commemoration that took place during the autumn of this year.
For us, that was particularly important as Royal Air Force Northolt was in the front line in the battle. It commemorated its 85th anniversary this year, and 600 Squadron the Royal Auxiliary Air Force—that is, the City of London Squadron—was a battle of Britain squadron and celebrated its 75th anniversary.
For the 60th anniversary of the battle, we had the moving ceremony of the freedom of entry to the borough of Hillingdon commemorated by a march of personnel from RAF Northolt into Ruislip. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) wants to be associated with these remarks, inasmuch as headquarters of No. 11 group of Fighter Command was at RAF Uxbridge and played a crucial part in the battle.
The hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) said that the risk to Europe of a great power invasion such as that posed by Hitler 60 years ago and by the Soviet Union during the period of the cold war had come to an end, and that we must adapt our institutions to meet the new challenges and the new realities in a highly unpredictable continent.
The hon. Gentleman also referred, as did many hon. Members during the debate, to the importance of parliamentary scrutiny of our joint activities as parliamentarians to ensure that our alliance as a whole makes a good and effective effort, and he said that the European security and defence initiative should have a parliamentary dimension.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the work of the assembly of the Western European Union, on which I serve. I take this opportunity to say how valuable that institution has proved, not only through the cold war, but in adapting to those new realities. In particular, it has expanded its membership in a highly commendable way, so that we now have no fewer than 28 member countries, with various gradations of membership beyond those of the 10 full members.
Now that the WEU is to be amalgamated within the European Union, the institution is coming under close and careful scrutiny. We in the assembly have had various reports, not least from Mr. Richard, the French Defence Minister. The French view, which is important because the French, like us, are a nuclear power and a key element of the defence of our continent, seems to be that article 5 of the Brussels treaty, which is a mutual security guarantee, should remain within the WEU, and so should the role of armaments co-operation.
That is a field in which we have great experience, as does the North Atlantic Assembly. With so many joint projects under way and planned, everyone understands the necessity of national parliamentarians putting pressure on their national Governments to vote the requisite budgets and to make sure that those joint programmes work and are forthcoming on budget, to time and to specification. That makes sense. I do not regret that the security institute in Paris should go to the European Union, or that the satellite reconnaissance and processing centre at Torrejon should also go to the EU.

923
However, I urge the Government to realise the significance of the assembly. It is important because it provides a bridge between those members of the alliance that are members of the EU, those that are members of NATO or members of both, and the other European partners of various kinds. Just a few days ago, we had a visit from parliamentarians of the Russian Duma—something that happens frequently in the North Atlantic Assembly, where there is a good dialogue with them as well.
We had a fascinating exchange of views about ballistic missile defence, to which the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Savidge) made a learned contribution, and on the Russian parliamentarians' attitude to Europe's acquiring a strategic identity of its own, with its own common defence policy and, in a sense, its own armed forces under its own control.
In an important speech in Warsaw, the Prime Minister suggested that the European Union could become a super-power. That was an unfortunate use of language. Europe has no more need of super-powers; what it needs is a community of interests among like-minded democratic states working together for their common good and mutual security. If the EU's acquisition of its own defence identity gave it the characteristics of a super-power, that would be a thoroughly retrograde development.
The Prime Minister also suggested that the European Parliament could have a second chamber consisting of national parliamentarians. The European Parliament is an institution that fulfils a function of its own in its own particular way, but it should not have a defence function. That is clear to me, for the reasons that I adduced earlier: for as long as national Governments are responsible for the composition of their armed forces and for procurement decisions, and for as long as national parliamentarians vote the requisite funds and are answerable to their electorates in ensuring that their military forces remain under democratic control, the European Parliament—which in any case has not the full treaty competence to assume a defence responsibility—should assume no such responsibility.
If the European Parliament assumed that responsibility, its action would accentuate the divide to which I referred earlier between those within the European Union and those who share similar aspirations for mutual security, and who for a long time to come will be outside the EU. In other words, it would be a thoroughly divisive development. I urge the Government to bear my comments in mind, and ask the Minister to reach a conclusion and give the Government's view.
Let me return to my original point. As one who spent his formative years in the Royal Air Force, I immensely appreciated Her Majesty's Government's commemoration of the battle of Britain in such a fitting way. As the Minister will remember, I asked him a question at the end of July, in response to which he gave me a list of events. We were proud that so many of those events took place at Royal Air Force Northolt and at Ruislip, in my constituency.
6.2 pm
Mr. Crispin Blunt: I thank my hon. Friends for their forbearance in allowing me to catch your eye towards the end of the debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I hope that the Minister will bear in mind what has been said about European defence, notably by my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) —the shadow Secretary of State—my right hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith), my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) and my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson). They expressed seriously held concerns about the development of the future alliance between the United States and Europe.
We have now entered a dangerous phase in the development of defence in Europe. I believe that the Prime Minister has made a fundamental mistake, and I hope that the Government will heed the warnings that senior Members have given—warnings that are echoed in the United States. The Government should bear in mind the fact that in view of the institutions that are currently being created, there is—we hope—still time to protect the current position, and to sustain defence within NATO. If the pass continues to be sold, as it began to be at St. Malo, we shall rue the day.
In debates such as this, it is possible to deal with a number of issues. Because of my professional background in defence, I find many of those issues enormously fascinating. I was particularly interested by what the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Ms Taylor) said about the role of women in the armed forces. She is right: that will be an important subject of debate, certainly over the next year, as the Secretary of State has instructed the armed services to look at women's role in the fighting echelons.
The hon. Member for Stockton, South and I hold profoundly different views on that subject. I hope that the Secretary of State will simply take the advice that I expect him to receive from the armed forces, and that there will be no further progress in that respect. However, I hope that if we debate the matter in the House, the hon. Lady will show proper respect for our views, especially the views of those of us who have experience in the fighting echelon. I refer not least to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan), who was in the Special Air Service and the infantry, and saw active service in Northern Ireland and in the Gulf. He speaks with recent authority on those matters.
One of the reasons why our armed forces are special may be our traditions and the way in which our regiments have been equipped, served and staffed. There are important questions about our future military effectiveness. Ultimately, the crux of the matter is not equal opportunities but military effectiveness. It is fine if an equal opportunities agenda can support that, but if not, serious choices must be made. I shall always choose the future military effectiveness of the armed forces, given that the primary duty of any Government is security.
Yesterday's debate began with an inelegant spat about the evidence that Air Marshal Sir John Day had given to the Select Committee on Defence earlier in the day, and about whether he had been volunteered, or told, to author or put his name to an article that appeared in a Sunday newspaper and rebutted the opinions of the Select Committee's excellent report on Kosovo.

925
The Minister for the Armed Forces referred to my intervention, and said that my behaviour at the beginning of the Kosovo crisis, when I called for the resignation of the Chief of the Defence Staff, had been despicable. I shall return to that matter shortly. He said:
Frankly, he will never be taken seriously on defence in this House until he apologises for that despicable behaviour.—[Official Report, 1 November 2000; Vol. 355, c. 807.]
The comment about being taken seriously is absurd. One should be taken seriously if one has informed views that are expressed honestly and with integrity. I believe that I did that.
Who actually behaves despicably? I want to focus on the use of the military to support politicians and political policy. The Government have a record of doing that. In yesterday's debate, the Secretary of State was properly incensed by the suggestion that he had instructed Air Marshal Day to write the article. I am glad about that, because it showed a sensitivity to the issue of using the military to put forward Government policy positions. The Secretary of State has not been associated with the worst aspects of that practice, which occurred during the conduct of the Kosovo crisis. However, it is part of a wider pattern of behaviour by the Government.
That behaviour began with the appointment of Alastair Campbell as the Prime Minister's press secretary, with an Order in Council to enable him and Jonathan Powell to give instructions to civil servants. They were therefore special special advisers, and a new status was created. In the Administration's early days, several heads of Government information departments were dismissed or removed, not least Gill Samuel, who was press secretary at the Ministry of Defence. I had the pleasure of working with her when Sir Malcolm Rifkind was Secretary of State for Defence and I was his special adviser.
Most disgraceful of all has perhaps been the appointment of John Williams as head of the news department at the Foreign Office. Anyone who read the bilge that John Williams produced as political editor of The Mirror knows that he should not head the news department of the Foreign Office, a post that requires a proper neutral presentation of Government policy rather than a presentation of Labour policy. It has been reported that the appointment was made in the teeth of opposition by Sir John Kerr, permanent secretary to the Foreign Office. That is highly regrettable. The Minister must understand that the Government have a record, and I hope that he will pay careful attention and give careful consideration where the military are involved.
We discussed the article by Sir John Day yesterday. I shall not say anything more about that, but instead draw the Minister's attention to another occasion during the Kosovo crisis when General John Drewienkiewicz, who headed the British contribution to the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe monitors in Kosovo, had got out of Kosovo and was trying to establish his mission in Macedonia. He had an enormously difficult task to do when he was summoned back to London to appear on a press platform with the Foreign Secretary and support his views on what had been happening in Kosovo.
If it was merely information that was required of General Drewienkiewicz, that could have been delivered by a number of methods from the field in which he was operating. Instead, operational priorities were subordinated to the Government's need to present their
926
policy and have a uniformed figure who was able to speak with the authority of his military experience, his uniform and his rank in support of the Government.
There are occasions when that is the right thing to do, because uniform and experience in the services gives spokesmen authority and credibility. The Army and other services have experienced that for some time. However, the authority with which people speak is not necessarily related to rank. The most effective advocates of what the military are about and the missions in which they are involved are sometimes junior non-commissioned officers. Hon. Members may remember the graphic account by a corporal and a sergeant who took part in the recent raid on Sierra Leone. They may also remember the lance-corporal from the battalion who appeared on television explaining what the training team were doing with the Sierra Leone army. Those soldiers made very effective advocates of what the military were about. Indeed, it was standard practice in Northern Ireland to use section commanders to explain what was happening, because they spoke with simple authority about the tasks that they had done.
I now turn to the demand from the Minister for the Armed Forces that I should apologise for asking General Sir Charles Guthrie to resign. The one area in which I feel that the Defence Committee report is lacking relates to the military advice that was given to our politicians at the outset of the Kosovo crisis and during the run-up to it. I was on the Defence Committee when we set up the terms of reference for the inquiry, and I made sure that that was included. I am sorry that it did not result in any paragraphs in the report—perhaps for the perfectly understandable reason that the Government were not prepared to disclose any of the military advice that they received.
One reason—perhaps the main reason—why I found myself asking the then Chief of Defence Staff to consider his position was the fact that every military commentator and every independent defence commentator outside the Government was saying that the conduct of the Kosovo operation was misconceived if it was an attempt solely on the basis of air power to bend President Milosevic and the Serbian Government to the will of NATO. Everyone was saying that what was required was the prospect of a ground invasion to follow up the use of air power. Indeed, when we reached the end of the crisis, the evidence that the Select Committee took revealed that we were within weeks, if not days, of mobilising the armed forces and the Territorial Army for that ground invasion in order to carry out our military objectives.
In response to an oral question from me in the House, Lord Robertson, who was then Secretary of State, said that the military advice that the Chief of the Defence Staff was giving contradicted the military assessment being made by everyone else outside the Ministry of Defence. We shall not know whether that was the case for 30 years, because that is when the papers will be released.
However, I put on record the fact that I do not believe that the Chief of the Defence Staff was at variance with every other military commentator. The issue turned on the fact that the Chief of the Defence Staff and all the other military chiefs in Europe and NATO had to plan within the political constraints put on them in 1998, which ruled out the use of ground forces. Attention is drawn to that in the Select Committee report. Of particular concern to me at the time was the fact that the Chief of the Defence Staff

927
was used, or chose to allow himself to be used, to promote the Government's policy, which was controversial both in this House and outside. That was ill advised and, indeed, wrong.
The Chief of the Defence Staff allowed his name to appear over an article in The Sun which said:
Slobodan Milosevic has been wiping out the population of Kosovo. His secret police, special forces and paramilitary thugs murder anyone in their way.
I have to say that from my time working alongside General Guthrie as a special adviser in the Ministry of Defence, I do not recognise him from the choice of language in that article. I like Sir Charles Guthrie as a man, which is why it was difficult for me to do what I did, and why I approached the issue seriously.
In articles in The Sunday Times and the Evening Standard, General Guthrie put forward the policy position of his political masters. In a phrase redolent of the Prime Minister, he said:
To govern is to choose and Nato's political leaders chose the third option with the aim of curbing Milosevic's ability to bully and murder the innocent people of Kosovo by hitting the key points of his command chain and curbing his forces on the ground.
General Guthrie went on to say:
Does our chosen course contain risks? Yes, but after months of analysis we have concluded that these risks are less than those presented by the other roads we could have chosen.
It is wrong that the Chief of the Defence Staff put himself forward to explain and defend Ministers' highly controversial policy.
Like me, defence commentators with a military background were most concerned about the potential politicisation of the armed forces. Francis Ponsonby, who covers defence issues in the House better than anyone else, and is a retired naval officer, said:
Mr Blunt was, however, right to draw attention to the astonishing defence of Government strategy which CDS allowed to be published over his signature in a national newspaper. Permanent Secretaries of Departments of State, to which CDS is equivalent, do not write to newspapers except, rarely, to correct glaringly inaccurate reports affecting their departments: public presentation of current policies and strategy is the province of Ministers which members of the present Government from the Prime Minister downwards have not been reluctant to employ. It is surprising that General Guthrie allowed himself to be used as he was, and Mr Blunt was undoubtedly right to draw attention to it, even though he seems to have made few friends by doing so.
To be fair to Francis Ponsonby, he questions whether I was wise to ask for the resignation of Sir Charles Guthrie. When my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) congratulated me on my political courage, I realised that perhaps I had gone a step too far regarding my personal position, and had been a little too courageous.
Following the comments of the Minister for the Armed Forces, I reviewed the matter last night and this morning, and asked myself whether I was right to do what I did. Like those who were Ministers at the time—and, no doubt, Sir Charles himself—the Minister for the Armed Forces saw my action as a stab in the back at a difficult time. That is a perfectly proper point of view, and when I said what I did, I realised that it might be seen in that way. However, I was speaking solely for myself, not for
928
my party. Indeed, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe was going to go on the record and make that clear to the House.
I was speaking for the constituency which I served, and into which I was born as the son and grandson of serving officers. It was the serving and retired military who felt disquiet at the way in which the Chief of the Defence Staff allowed himself to be used to present what were properly policy issues. He should not have been put in that position. I still believe that as an informed Back Bencher, I was entitled, and right, to come to the conclusion that I did.
I note that after my letter was published in The Times, the Chief of the Defence Staff desisted from publishing further articles during the Kosovo conflict. I think that that was to do with the disquiet that I had expressed. I would like to place on record the fact that since then, I have had no cause to query the performance of the Chief of the Defence Staff. In the past 18 months he has been particularly effective. Perhaps what he should be most proud of is the political action that he had to carry out privately: rescuing the defence budget before the last comprehensive spending review. He did the job that Ministers and the Secretary of State failed to do to get increased resources for defence.
The one conclusion that I hope Ministers will bear in mind is that they should take the greatest care about using serving service men to promote what is properly a matter of policy. It causes great disquiet to those of us with a service background. The armed services should not be politicised, and special care should be taken that they are not.
6.21 pm
Mr. Robert Key: This has been a remarkable two-day debate. I suspect that, at the end of the debate this time last week, we had no idea—certainly none of us on the Conservative Benches had any idea—that we were facing another two days of debate. When we all heard that we were having another two, there was not only a mixture of elation and delight that at last we were going to have our head, but a few inner groans about how we were going to fill the time and what the quality of the debate was going to be. All I can say is that, after more than 17 years in the House, my view that this has undoubtedly been one of the best two-day debates that we have had. The quality of individual contributions on both sides of the House has been very high.
I recall my visit to the Italian parliamentary defence committee. I think that I am right in saying that there are some 60 members of it, 14 of whom have ever been known to turn up to a meeting, and the meetings are usually extremely brief. That is about it in the Parliament of one of our major allies. Therefore, we should take seriously the Defence Committee's role in meeting parliamentarians from other defence committees.
Having said that, I must start on a light note and I will end on a serious one. The light note is to record that the MOD websites have still not been updated. I shall check regularly to see if the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie), is still a recently arrived addition to the team.
Also on a light note, having listened for two days to some of the delusions of Labour Members about what the Conservative party does and does not believe, and why

929
the Prime Minister has completely changed his mind on our relationship with the European Union, I am drawn to Lord Robertson's 12 rules of opposition. I found one that I thought explained what might be in the minds of some Members. Item 3 says:
Don't pretend you are the government. This delusion, beloved of opposition politicians being self-important (and I confess to the affliction at times) is time consuming and unproductive and a real waste of energy. One of the few minor benefits of opposition is that occasionally you do not have to agonise like the government on tough decisions and can enjoy not being in the hot seat.
He then says something revealing:
I recall in the early 80s a colleague of mine coming from a Shadow Cabinet meeting shaking his head, "Usually we spend hours discussing matters as if we were the government. Tonight", he went on, "it was much worse, they were pretending to be the American government."
Before I turn to the debate itself, may I say how much I shall miss the cheery countenance opposite of the hon. Member for Halesowen and Rowley Regis (Mrs. Heal)? I congratulate her on her appointment as First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means. She has taken a serious part in our defence debates for some years. Although we shall miss her contributions, we shall look forward very much to seeing her in the Chair.
The only point that I should like to pick up in what the Minister for the Armed Forces said is his remark about cadets. I welcome almost everything else; I am very pleased that some of the ideas that I raised two years ago and more have been taken on board. Yesterday, we heard a remarkable and informed speech by the hon. Member for Tamworth (Mr. Jenkins). I have not informed him of my intention to refer to him because I am going to compliment him. I spoke to him today, and he told me how worried he was about the cadets. He said that there are still schools in his constituency that will not allow the cadets—let alone Army recruiting teams—anywhere near them. I know not whether that is the case; I simply report it. If it is true that some education authorities or schools will still not let either Army recruiting teams or cadet forces near them, I hope that Ministers will take the matter very seriously.
Mr. Spellar: I have done more than that: I have asked the Department to notify me of any such case so that I can take it up with the relevant Member of Parliament or education authority. I am more than delighted to take this opportunity of extending that invitation to hon. Members. I am more than happy to take up such cases.
Mr. Key: I thank the Minister very much indeed for that generous offer, which I hope will be taken up.
The hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) made a remarkable and well-informed speech, as one would expect. However, it should be read alongside the speech of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), whose remarks would act as a foil to some of the hon. Gentleman's more extraordinary views.
As usual, the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Keetch) made an informed, helpful and constructive speech. I wholly concur with many of his ideas.
I can only thank the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes) for his good humour under fire from the Opposition, which is typical of him. [Interruption.] Here
930
he comes, just in time to hear the tribute that I am paying him for his good humour and serious contribution to defence matters in the House.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe made a remarkable speech, which stands alone; it does not need my endorsement or praise. His was a landmark speech, which I hope will be widely quoted in the weeks, months and years to come.
The hon. Member for Stockton, South (Ms Taylor) made a passionate speech. She always makes passionate speeches, which is a very good thing indeed. However, I draw her attention to two issues that arise from what she said. She cited with approbation what has happened in the United States of America, but she is mistaken. She will find that the US military is suffering terrible crises of ethos precisely because of the policies that she recommends us to adopt here. She mentioned Israel, which is often cited as a state where women fight in the front line and as the state of equality for women in the services. I fear that nothing could be further from the truth. Israel tried that policy, but it did not work for many reasons which are well documented—and easy to pull off the web. It simply has not worked there and, in 1995, Israeli supreme court judgments changed the situation somewhat. Moreover, there is another factor—public opinion—with which I shall deal later. Nevertheless, the hon. Lady made a courageous speech.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith), who is a supreme Atlanticist, made a very fine speech indeed. I hope that it will be widely read for its sheer common sense and the long view that he takes, based on many years of experience.
The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Savidge) made a very serious contribution, as usual, to the debate—in this case, on ballistic missile defence. He is right that we need to hear more about that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) was so right to speak of the certainty of the next crisis, and about what our reaction to it should be.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) quite rightly stressed the parliamentary dimension to whatever replaces the current system. His decision to stress that dimension is born of long experience in the House and, indeed, in Europe. I congratulate him on that decision.
My hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) made a speech which I am quite sure will be remembered for its courtesy and the very great personal conviction with which he expressed his views.
This debate really needs to be about reassuring members of the armed forces and their families that we understand what their life is all about. We have heard many speeches in which we—Ministers, Labour Members and Opposition Members—have lectured the armed forces on defence, but it is time that we did a lot more listening. I suspect that the Government and the Opposition are at one on the need to do precisely that.
The challenge that we face is one of internal communication within the forces—the military machine—the Ministry of Defence, and the House of Commons itself. Internal communication must be led by organisations such as—to give but two examples—the Army Families Federation, and its equivalents in the RAF and the Navy, and HIVES—Help, Information and

931
Volunteer Exchanges. Tri-service wide, there are more than 80 such remarkable organisations, providing an enormously and increasingly important resource for Army, Navy and RAF families.
The importance of those organisations is recognised in, for example, "Armed Forces Overarching Personnel Strategy"—which is a hugely important document, with an incredibly boring title that is enough to put anyone off. However, the document recognises the new world into which the armed forces have moved, having experienced not only a contraction in numbers but a completely new world of relationships that are perhaps best characterised as inclusive.
It is also hugely encouraging, I am convinced, that the Adjutant-General clearly understands what is going on and what needs to be done to achieve the internal communication objectives. However, I am not so sure that the Treasury understands what needs to be done. The question that the Opposition must ask is, what is the Government's real commitment to people in our military community? Given that the Government—and certainly Defence Ministers—understand what is needed, will we see a financial commitment to that internal communication, which will be the mortar that binds together the military's family and personnel strategies?
It is, as ever, all about priorities. The first priority has to be operations. Operations are what the British military is very good at, and operations are what the British military enjoys doing. However, perhaps operations have had too much of a priority over personnel. Now, people must come a very close second to operations in the priorities of the Ministry of Defence, and politicians must start listening and learning very much more carefully than they have in the past.
There is just one document that people should be encouraged to read—the "Future Army Concept Paper", which says it all and is a mine of information for questing politicians. Instead of indulging our own fantasies, perhaps we should spend a little more time understanding the military point of view—which is all in this document. The "Future Army Concept Paper" is updated every few years, and a very great deal stems from it.
The first thing to recognise in the document is its identification and flagging up of the first-order issues, the first of which is the nature of conflict. The paper states:
The fundamental character of conflict will continue to present an enduring physical and moral challenge for the soldier: a combination of extreme danger, rapidly changing circumstances in conditions of chaos and uncertainty, and severe physical demands. The capability and mental outlook to conduct aggressive close combat operations and to overcome the friction inherent in war will remain essential.
The paper goes on, very helpfully, to talk about asymmetry—which is the increasing probability of conflict that is not quite the conflict that we are used to. What we need to understand as politicians is that the military have to get inside the minds of their enemies. Perhaps Governments and Oppositions do that, too, but it is a bit different when it is a matter of life and death.
The asymmetric process explained in the document embraces the
perceived weaknesses and vulnerabilities of the military, such as multi-national fault lines, the sensitivity of public opinion to casualties, cultural constraints (eg the use of women or children), legitimacy, and the rules of engagement.
932
The document says that those
could apply throughout the battlespace from the front line to the home base.
We need to understand that more clearly, then we would begin to understand why there is resistance in the forces to having women in the front line. The question of the future soldier is also of a high order of priority. The military paper says:
Account will need to be taken of future legislation, financial and other expectations, and the social environment (eg family unit, work patterns, urbanisation). The collective impact of these "people" trends on Future Army Capability is a key area for further work.
I should say so! That is absolutely crucial to the whole future of our armed forces personnel strategy.
The Armed Forces Discipline Act 2000 has been extremely controversial. We were originally told by the Lord Chancellor that it would not impact on the military, but that was gradually eroded in Committee and the Government rowed back and said that, yes, we would have to change the system and add appeal courts, and we ended up with something that will be extremely difficult for the military to operate; but the military will recognise that and do what they are told to do by the Government of the day. That is clear, and it can be very dangerous.
On enabling capabilities, the document calls for a more flexible approach to the use of the reserves. That is absolutely right. It calls for
a more productive approach to the integration of full-time and part-time components.
We know all about that.
The paper also includes a section on nuclear, biological and chemical warfare and speaks of the need for an integrated approach, with a
defence and decontamination capability in theatre…and at home.
I have always thought that the strategic defence review neglected that. It assumed that there was no point in a home guard. Defence of the homeland did not appear once in the review document, as far as I recall. The Army recognises the need for ballistic missile defence. The paper says:
The Future Army must monitor closely defence thinking in this complex area—including any impact for Future Capabilities.
The annexe to the paper sets out the Chief of the General Staff's vision for the Army in the 21st century. It was published only last month. Its final bullet point says:
We will develop, educate and reward our officers and soldiers so they have a true sense of their worth. They and their families must be provided with the care and support needed at home, in barracks and on operations as well as resettlement into civilian life. Careers and advancement will be based on equal opportunities and merit, but will also reflect the way we fight and organise.
The Government must set the political constraints. They are responsible for the personnel policy of the armed forces and for finding the money to pay them and buy the equipment. The Government are responsible for our role in the international world of defence. In the end, everything is down to the military—to the men and women of Her Majesty's forces—as well as to their families, to the scientific, industrial and administrative civil servants, to the private sector contractors who support them and to the vast work force in the defence industries of this country.
The greatest challenges facing the military are the human challenges imposed on them by the Government of the day, such as women in the front line and other

933
human relations issues. Our firm conviction is that those decisions must be taken by the chiefs of staff and the military themselves. What matters is military capability, not what we think is politically correct. That is the message that the Conservative party must send out tonight.
6.39 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Dr. Lewis Moonie): I shall preface my remarks with a short statement, which I have agreed with the spokesmen from the two main Opposition parties, about something that happened earlier today.
In the early hours of this morning, a fire occurred in the engine room of HMS Fearless, which is currently in the Mediterranean. As a result of tremendous work by the crew, to whom I pay tribute, the fire was put out rapidly. There were 11 minor casualties, all of whom have fully recovered and are again available for duty.
The full extent of the damage and the cause of the fire are being investigated. We have decided to withdraw HMS Fearless from the amphibious taskforce deployment announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on Monday. That deployment will still go ahead, however, with the Royal Fleet Auxiliary vessel Argus and her embarked helicopters joining the group to support HMS Ocean. The fact that we have been able to integrate Argus at such short notice demonstrates the flexibility of our maritime forces, and our rapid reaction capability.
Mr. Duncan Smith: I thank the Minister for his flexibility in coming to the House to make that semi-statement. Will he, on behalf of Opposition Members, represent to members of the crew our hope that all has gone well and that our thoughts are with them in these difficult times? However, will he assure the House that that ship will not be out of service for too long? Has he any idea of the extent of the damage to the vessel and of how long it will be out of service? Will he be able to let the House know those details as soon as possible?
Dr. Moonie: I shall certainly pass the hon. Gentleman's remarks on to the crew. As to the extent of the damage, I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the ship is sailing under its own power to Malta, where attempts at repair will be made and the extent of the damage inspected. At present, we are uncertain about how extensive the damage is, and about how long the ship will be out of service. However, I can assure the House that it will be brought back into service as soon as possible.
Mr. Menzies Campbell: May I associate myself and my party with the expressions of sympathy uttered by the hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith)? Will the Minister say whether the effect of replacing HMS Fearless with RFA Argus and its complement of helicopters will be to strengthen the taskforce rather than weaken it?
Dr. Moonie: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is right: the presence of the Argus and its three Sea King helicopters will provide the taskforce with an enhanced capability.
Before I reply to the debate, I should tell the House that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State regrets that he cannot be present this evening, as a pressing engagement has meant that he cannot stay to the end of the debate.
934
It is a privilege for me to draw this defence debate to a close after two excellent days. However, a truly adequate reply would require that the debate be held over three days. I therefore regret that many hon. Members may be disappointed with the brevity of my remarks, and I hope that those to whom I do not manage to refer will recognise that time is limited.
Over the past two days, we have heard how the Government are investing in defence to make sure that our forces remain the best in the world. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State began by announcing another important decision about equipment that has been widely welcomed by hon. Members of all parties. The announcement of the engine choice for the type 45 destroyer is good news for Rolls-Royce, for jobs and for this country.
In replying to a debate such as this, one has to recognise certain priorities. I was intending to reply only to the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies), but my remarks are so extensive that I think that I shall post them to him—without a stamp.
A couple of minor housekeeping announcements give me some satisfaction. First, with the agreement of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and of my hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces, I shall henceforward be taking over responsibility for cadets and reserve forces. I hope that I will be able to maintain the focus that has been placed on them and to give them the attention that they deserve. Many references have been made to them today, and I am looking forward to the challenge of trying to reverse some of the problems that we have had. I want to ensure that they are given the respect, and the status in society, that they deserve.
I have already made my next announcement in the press because it was being made public from another source, so I shall deal with it briefly. After great difficulty, my staff have managed to source some of our lamb from this country. It amounts to some 20 per cent. of our total requirement—not as much as we would all have liked, but it is a good start. I certainly hope that we can do further work on that in future.
There were one or two points made in yesterday's debate that I will try to sweep up, because my hon. Friend the Minister promised that I would. First, the use of ID tags is an important point which, as the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) rightly said, has been in our domain for quite some time. It is currently receiving active consideration. Our aim is to address the entire information needs of the defence medical services. We were hoping to initiate procurement through a private finance initiative project but, as sometimes happens, the final bidder withdrew earlier this year and the procurement is now to take place under the smart procurement initiative. An integrated project team is about to be appointed to take the project forward, although it is not at this stage possible to say when it might be placed. However, it is active.
We recognise the importance of accurate medical information on our troops, particularly in the theatre. We are in fact using the theatre of operational medical data system, which can be downloaded on to laptop computers and used in the field. It has proved very useful in ensuring that we maintain accurate permanent records for our staff, particularly in view of some of the illnesses and the comments that have been made about them over the past couple of days. I hope that I will have time to return to that in the course of my reply.

935
Let me make some remarks about our proposals for the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency. I am not simply replying to the points raised in the debate in chronological order, but right hon. and hon. Members will recognise that I must give them some sort of priority. I will respond to as many as I can.
I have spoken in an Adjournment debate on the subject of DERA, which has been raised on numerous occasions over the past year, and we have also announced to the House our intention to proceed with the implementation of the core confidence model for the DERA public-private partnership. This is our chosen solution. Under the core confidence model, two new organisations will be created, with 75 per cent. turned into a private sector company—new DERA—to be floated on the stock market once its potential is suitably developed, which has not yet taken place.
We will retain just under 3,000 staff in the Ministry of Defence, in what is now known as RDERA—or retained DERA—to carry out research in key areas to provide a high-level overview of defence science and technology, in-house impartial advice and management of international research collaboration. That is a different role that is in no way a second-best option for those who are retained in the public sector—quite the reverse. Both organisations will be viable and sustainable, adequately resourced to carry out the tasks expected of them.
We have always emphasised that new DERA, although a key supplier to the Ministry of Defence, will operate and be treated as a fully private sector company. Although a very important supplier, it will have no special or privileged relationship with the MOD. There will be a level playing field with industry which, frankly, I think is essential.
We are committed to ensuring that new DERA does not have an unfair commercial advantage and that all bidders for our future work are treated fairly and equitably. It is very much in the long-term interests of the MOD to encourage genuine competition, not only to maximise value for money but to open up our research programmes to new ideas from outside the Government. We are conducting a small pilot exercise to help us understand the issues associated with running competitions in a complex area that is difficult to define. Although there will always be some areas of work in which competition is not practicable, our goal is to ensure that as much as possible of the research programme is competed for.
I will not say any more about that—I think that I have given as brief but as full an explanation of the position as possible. I cannot say when our proposals will come to fruition; we have not yet decided on the exact mechanism to enable that to happen. When we do, I assure right hon. and hon. Members that they will be the first to know.
Mr. Duncan Smith: We remain in the dark. The joint strike fighter is a critical component of our defence strategy over the next 10 years, and issues such as those surrounding Boscombe down and the transfer of information lie at the heart of policy; yet we do not know where matters stand. Can the Minister not inform us much
936
sooner of what is happening so that industry may know exactly what is going on and where things will fit in the structure?
Dr. Moonie: I accept that there is frustration among Conservative Members, but hope that they will accept that the issues are complex. We are well aware of decisions that must be taken in other programmes on which this matter has a bearing. As soon as we are aware of all the information, the House will be informed on what we intend to do.
Comments were made about Gulf veterans' illnesses and 400 deaths. There have been 400 deaths among the group of those suffering illnesses, not 400 deaths from the illnesses. It is nice to be able to claim expert knowledge on a subject, and I am an epidemiologist. As such, I have considered the advice that we have received on Gulf veterans' illnesses.
The major study was done by the university of Manchester to determine whether Gulf veterans were experiencing greater ill health than service personnel who did not take part in the conflict. The results of the mortality component were published in The Lancet on 1 July. The study found that the number of deaths and the causes of death in the comparison group that did not deploy to the Gulf were similar to those recorded among Gulf veterans. There was a very small excess of deaths among Gulf veterans, but that was due to road traffic accidents. Despite my many years of experience in medicine, I cannot come up with a credible hypothesis for how or why that should be, except to suggest that it is the kind of random finding that often arises from epidemiological data.
The university of Manchester's work on ill health and morbidity among Gulf veterans is complete. The manuscript is currently being prepared for submission to a fully peer-reviewed scientific journal. When it reaches the public domain, it will do so with the authoritative backing of whichever journal pays to publish it. Hon. Members will await publication with great interest.
I suppose that I should say something about European defence since so many Conservative Members mentioned it. No doubt it would disappoint and frustrate all the old Atlanticists among them and sundry others if I did not. I am sure that they would be happy to know that we continue to make good progress on the European defence initiative—[Interruption.] Have I rung the wrong note there, perhaps? The United Kingdom has played a leading role over the past year—[Interruption.] I note that Conservative delight knows no bounds at that. Our priority is to improve European military capabilities via the headline goal so that European nations may make a better contribution to NATO and take effective action when the whole alliance is not engaged. Kosovo has surely shown that Europe needs to pull its own weight.
The UK is pleased with the work done so far to flesh out the headline goal requirement into a detailed list of the forces and capabilities required for EU-led crisis management operations. Real capability improvements do not happen overnight—
Mr. Eric Forth: The Minister said, reading further.
Dr. Moonie: Given the quality of reporting of defence issues in the Conservative press, such as in today's

937
Daily Mail, one must read things out very carefully. No doubt many Conservative editorials have already been prepared following some of the speeches in this debate. I note that the journalists are not waiting upstairs with bated breath to hear what I have to say. Their minds may already be made up. At least, when the record is read, it will show exactly what I said, and nothing else.
Mr. Forth: The Daily Record?
Dr. Moonie: Perhaps even the Daily Record, although it is more than 1 dare hope that I might find a report of my speech in that paper tomorrow, unless I phone it in myself, which I have no intention of doing.
I can assure the House that NATO will remain the cornerstone of our security and defence policy. By strengthening the European pillar of NATO, we will strengthen NATO as a whole. We are not creating a European army, or a standing rapid reaction force. Individual countries will decide whether, when and how to commit their forces.
We hope by the time of the European Council in December 2000 to include certain commitments—a commitment to deliver the necessary capabilities to implement the headline goal; substantial progress towards permanent EU, NATO, and Berlin plus arrangements; definitive proposals for a functioning EU military committee and EU military staff in order that permanent bodies can be established soon after; and—
Mr. Howard: Why, if the only objective is to strengthen the European pillar of NATO, is it necessary to set up all these committees outside NATO?
Dr. Moonie: It is a fairly prudent step to take. One cannot see into the future, but there could be a result in the American election next week—unlikely, I trust—which might lead the right hon. and learned Gentleman to different conclusions in a few years' time. The future is not fixed and events may not turn out as right hon. and hon. Members think.
I have one or two minor points to make, but they are nevertheless important to our service men and women, who, as the hon. Member for Salisbury said, are at the core of the debate. The first concerns dog owners in Germany. Proposed legislation may affect some dogs owned by some service men and women, but it will mainly affect the import of such animals. They may be subjected to controls, but nothing worse than that. There is considerable opposition to the legislation within Germany and it is by no means certain that it will proceed.
Cyprus is a difficult problem. Those who went out to Cyprus on the present tour went in the full knowledge that when they came back their pets would have to enter quarantine. We had hoped to extend our proposals to Cyprus, but legislative pressures make that difficult. However, I am in contact with my colleagues in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and I shall do my best to resolve the matter. Not quite as many dogs are involved as were mentioned, but I recognise that they pose a problem for many, about which I hope that we shall be able to do something.
There was considerable misunderstanding about anti-malaria tablets. To set the record straight, most troops received anti-malaria tablets before deployment.
938
Those who did not, because of the speed with which they were deployed to Sierra Leone, were provided with an appropriate tablet on deployment. As hon. Members know, there have been a substantial number of cases of malaria, but all affected have made a reasonable recovery. We have taken note of the lessons to be learned. We have not apportioned blame, but we have reinforced the advice given to all our regiments that their members should at all times be prepared for deployment to areas where disease is rife, so appropriate precautions should be taken.
With regard to the MOD internet site, for which I am probably responsible—
Mr. Spellar: My hon. Friend certainly is.
Dr. Moonie: I had a feeling that I might be. The active pages of the site are regularly updated. In fact, they were updated this afternoon—
Mr. Quentin Davies: I would not pretend that this issue has anything like the importance of dogs and the MOD website, but before the hon. Gentleman sits down, does he intend to say anything about the JSF and the future of our carrier-borne air force?
Dr. Moonie: I did not say—
Sir Peter Emery: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is most unusual for a statement to be made in the middle of a debate, particularly when the Minister has 21 minutes to reply and the statement took approximately four minutes—20 per cent. of the time. It is within your power to extend the debate for another five minutes, and I think that you should do so.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): It is not within my power to extend the period of the debate, and, in any case, I thought that the way in which the statement was made was generally accepted by the House.
Dr. Moonie: I apologise that I have not been able to reply to all the points that have been raised. We have not yet come to a decision on the joint strike fighter. There are two American proposals at present, both of which are being taken forward and in both of which we have an interest. We will continue to be closely involved, and the House will continue to be—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is now 7 o'clock, and the motion lapses.
It being Seven o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That at the sitting on Tuesday 7th November the Speaker shall put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the Motions in the name of Margaret Beckett relating to Programming of Bills and Deferred Divisions not later than Eight o'clock, and such Questions shall include the Questions on any amendments selected by the Speaker which may then be moved.—[Mr. Betts.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker: This motion is not exempted business. It may not be proceeded with.

PETITION

  Pensions (Earnings Link)
  7 pm
  Mr. Kerry Pollard (St. Albans): I bring a petition from Peter Wright and others in my St. Albans constituency, which declares that
  in a thriving economy, pensioners do not have their fair share of the nation's wealth.
  The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons restore the link between the basic state pension and earnings.
  To lie upon the Table.

  Care in the Community
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Betts.]
  7.1 pm
  Helen Jones: I am grateful to have the opportunity to raise the regulation of care in the community schemes. I do so following problems with a charity in my constituency called Integrate Services, which I have previously raised in the House. Now that the Charity Commission has made its report on Integrate, it is time to learn the lessons of the whole sorry saga and look at ways of preventing similar occurrences elsewhere.
  Despite the problems, I believe strongly in the principle of care in the community. Properly regulated schemes offer their residents a much better quality of life and much better opportunities to participate in the world around them than would otherwise be the case, but it is important that we get the framework for the schemes right. They must be properly regulated precisely because they deal with some very vulnerable people.
  Care in the community schemes have not always been properly regulated. The problem goes back to the way in which schemes were set up. In the 1980s, there was much pressure to move some of the responsibilities of health and social care on to independent providers. There is no doubt that that move was partly ideologically driven. At the same time, the pressure was on to empty our long-stay hospitals, and little thought was given to the legal framework within which the schemes operated, to their governance or to the need to protect the rights of residents. At the same time, as my hon. Friend the Minister will be aware, major changes were taking place in the health service, with purchaser-provider splits, the reconfiguration of health authorities and the creation of trusts.
  It was the combination of that ideological pressure and the constantly changing roles of staff that meant that the necessary checks and balances were not built into the system. The system relies largely on good will. If we are honest, good will usually works, but we have to have a system that caters for the worst cases and has at its heart the protection of vulnerable people, many of whom, like those with whom I have dealt at Integrate, are without friends or family to speak on their behalf.
  As my hon. Friend knows, the real problem is that the schemes are hybrids. They are often run by charities, but many of the charities are not fundraising organisations. They rely almost entirely on public money—usually on section 64 grants. Yet charity law is designed mainly to deal with fundraising organisations. The charities that run care in the community schemes have contracts with health authorities, but health authorities cannot force them to comply with certain requirements because the charities are regulated by charity law. The position has not been thought through.
  Following the problems in my constituency, I spoke to many people in the health authority, in social services and in the voluntary sector. I am grateful to them for taking the time to discuss the matter with me. I want to offer a few modest proposals to take us forward.
  It is clear that many health authorities do not have a strategic policy for developing care in the community. There is no requirement on them to assess client needs,

  941
  to look at how those needs will change over time or to produce projections of likely demand. The staff who have most contact with people in care in the community schemes—general practitioners and community staff—are not brought into the process at all. In some respects, the whole modernisation agenda has passed care in the community by. I suggest that we should deal with that by requiring health authorities to include in their health improvement programmes an explicit section on care in the community, so that schemes can be planned and developed in conjunction with the providers.
  The relationship between the health authority and the various providers will always be difficult. Too much contact will provoke allegations of interference, but too little means poor oversight of how public money is being spent. We need a simple mechanism to deal with that. Conditions should be attached to the award of a section 64 grant that would require care in the community organisations to make a brief annual report to the health authority.
  In its report on Integrate Services, the Charity Commission recommended such an annual report. That report should deal with such matters as the funds that have been obtained, how they were spent and how much surplus was retained. When a charity is involved, the report should also notify the health authority of any changes in the objects of the charity. It should list the appointment of new trustees, the reasons for their appointment and the skills that they bring to the organisation.
  I realise that some of those points might be somewhat contentious, but my experience with Integrate—when a charity changed its objects so as to widen its area of operation, but was under no obligation to notify the health authority, its main funder, despite the fact that the health authority had the locus only to fund care in Warrington—leads me to believe that such provisions are essential. There are other examples relating to that charity. Friends of the chief executive were appointed as trustees. One of them had been dismissed from the health service for gross misconduct. As the Charity Commission report pointed out, the trustees had very little concept of what their duties were.
  I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will encourage health authorities to look again at their contracting process. Contracts should cover matters such as the training that staff can expect. Authorities should ensure that there are schemes to deal with providers obligations under the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998. In the case of the charity to which I referred, it was clear that staff had not always received the training that they had the right to expect. There was no procedure for dealing with whistleblowers, who were harassed and intimidated by management.
  We should encourage health authorities to go even further in their contracts. They should ensure that independent advocates have a right of access to care in the community schemes and that there is agreement on how residents' personal finances should be dealt with. In the case that I mentioned above, when the health authority decided to change the provider, independent advocates spoke to residents and uncovered some heart-rending stories. If the advocates had had access earlier, many of the problems might have been prevented.
  942
  The Government rightly want to ensure that advocates are included on hospital trusts; how much more important it is that people with mental health problems or learning difficulties, who have no friends or family to speak on their behalf, should have access to advocacy. That is a matter of basic human rights—as is ensuring that residents have access to their own benefit entitlements, instead of being dependent on cash handouts from staff. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will discuss with our friends in the Department of Social Security the current practice of allowing the mobility component of disability living allowance to be paid to managers of residential homes. In my view it is a pernicious practice and contrary to the rights of residents.
  Health authorities should ensure that they have in their contracts an agreement on surpluses. Everyone accepts that organisations need a reasonable operating surplus, but the situation that occurred at Integrate—which, on an annual turnover of about £700,000, was building up a surplus almost equivalent to that of its successor organisation, which had national revenues of £22 million—cannot be allowed to occur again. It is a matter of ensuring that money given for the care of residents is used for that care, not to build up other assets for a charity.
  Each contract should include an agreed exit strategy, so that if the health authority decides to move to another provider, it is able to contact staff to say what is going on. In my constituency, the health authority had no right to the names and addresses of staff working in Integrate Services, and they were fed a host of rumours by their management about what would happen to them.
  That process of ensuring that proper matters are dealt with in the contract and in an annual report would seem to me to go a long way to improve the situation. The health authority could then annually conduct a short, sharp accountability review before it decided whether to make another grant.
  Health authorities on their own cannot resolve the problem. I know that my hon. Friend the Minister is not responsible for the Charity Commission and I do not have time tonight to list what I believe to be all the faults in the Charity Commission's procedures, but it is undoubtedly true that it is too slow in conducting section 8 investigations. In the case of Integrate Services, the commission was notified in May 1999 of concerns about the charity but did not begin an investigation until September of that year, and did not report until September this year—long after the health authority had moved to another provider. That is simply not acceptable in a case that involves vulnerable people in residential homes, and it allows a crisis to build up.
  In my view, the Charity Commission does not take these cases seriously enough, as instanced by the fact in this case that it was March 2000 before it appointed new trustees to the charity, as it was perfectly entitled to do, and that it never served an order on the charity requiring the production of papers. There are still allegations that the chief executive removed various papers from the charity. It is not surprising, then, that the Charity Commission could not reach a final view on many of the allegations because paperwork simply was not there.
  The Charity Commission should do more. It should become much more proactive in giving advice to charities on governance and good practice, instead of waiting until problems occur. It needs to give advice on trustees'

  943
  duties—such as advice on their relationships with chief officers, and on the sort of professional advice that they should be taking on certain matters. That is particularly crucial in small organisations, and if that had happened in this case, we might not have seen the problems that occurred with trustees. We might not have had the nonsense whereby an officer of the Royal College of Nursing acted as adviser to the trustees, when many of the complaints dealt with one of the senior officers of the charity, who was herself a former senior officer of the RCN, and no one saw that there was a conflict of interest. Trustees should have been given advice on that. I hope that, in future, my hon. Friend the Minister will discuss those matters with the Home Office, to see how we can proceed.
  Lastly, I want to touch on the subject of the regulation of residential homes. We can talk about the duties of trustees—and they are very important—but everyone knows that much of the day-to-day care depends on senior managers who are running those homes. The Care Standards Act 2000 is a great step forward in improving residential care, but I hope that my hon. Friend will consider carefully whether inspectors should not also have the right to satisfy themselves about the arrangements for the recruitment, appraisal and monitoring of registered managers in such homes. They have the crucial day-to-day role. If inspectors have any concerns, they should also be able to call for a care audit by an outside organisation.
  Our aim should be to prevent problems from arising and, when they do, we should ensure that they are dealt with a soon as possible. It is my firm view that the previous Government left us with a mish-mash of regulations on care in the community that simply do not work when problems occur. Our aim should be to ensure that vulnerable people are much better protected than they are and that we have a coherent strategy for providing and monitoring care in the community and for ensuring that such people receive the best possible services that we can provide. I hope that my hon. Friend will consider what his Department can do and, in the longer term, will examine the issues that need to be discussed with other Departments.
  7.16 pm
  The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Hutton): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, North (Helen Jones) on raising this subject and on her interest in ensuring that public resources in the national health service are used properly and effectively. I am also grateful to her for the opportunity to deal with some of the wider issues that she has raised and to reassure her that the Government share her concern to make sure that the highest possible standards of care are provided to people in care homes in future. In doing that, I hope that I will be able to confirm to her that we have the coherent strategy for improving services that she seeks.
  I also wish to confirm that the modernisation process that we have set in train will not bypass community care. The new arrangements for improved planning between health authorities and local authorities that we have put in place, the use of the flexibilities in the Health Act 1999
  944
  on pool budgets and other arrangements and now the creation of new care trusts will lead to the progress that my hon. Friend wants.
  I start by addressing the concerns that she has raised again about Integrate Services and its use of section 64 grant money received from the North Cheshire health authority. She raised her concerns with me earlier in the year and also during an earlier Adjournment debate in February to which the Minister of State, Home Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng), replied.
  Since then, as my hon. Friend has reminded the House, the Charity Commission has completed its investigation into the organisation. In its report, published in September, the commission found no evidence of fraud on the part of the trustees of Integrate Services. However the report criticised Integrate Services for poor management and poor financial and accounting procedures.
  In particular, the commission found no evidence of detailed and effective systems for recording the use of charity expenditure and senior staff time. It also found that insufficient attention was given to ensuring that management and staff had the appropriate range of skills and experience needed in running such an organisation and considered that the trustees had failed to institute sufficiently robust checks and report-back arrangements on the effective systems of management control. As my hon. Friend will be aware, the report adds that some of the misunderstandings and disagreements that arose between Integrate Services and the health authority over spending could have been avoided had a full service specification been in place, and with better communication. Again, my hon. Friend has expressed her concerns about the lack of both.
  The section 64 grant to Integrate Services ceased in March this year and the organisation has now gone into liquidation. However, ensuring adequate control over such public finds remains an issue to which we attach the highest importance. We have taken action, as the result of the case to which my hon. Friend has referred, to ensure that better and clearer procedures are in place in future surrounding the use of section 64 grants. I will say more about the changes that we have made shortly.
  It might help my hon. Friend if I explain how the section 64 grant scheme works, and I shall do that as briefly as I can. At a national level, the Department itself gives grants to voluntary bodies in the health and social care sector. Applications for these grants are subject to close checking, including a check of the organisation's accounts. My officials keep in regular touch with the voluntary body to monitor whether the money is being spent for the purpose that it was given. During the life of the grant the voluntary body must identify its grant expenditure in its annual accounts and the Department checks these.
  Several bodies are also selected annually for value-for-money audits by our auditors. Any signs of misuse of grants, lax accounting or poor value will be followed up. Through these arrangements the Department seeks to ensure that section 64 grants are spent in the way that we intended and are properly accounted for. These arrangements are kept under review in the light of events. I am satisfied that they enable us to identify a situation such as that at Integrate Services.

  945
  At local level, health authorities also have powers to give section 64 grants to voluntary bodies in their areas, and my hon. Friend has expressed her concern about this. First and foremost, the section 64 grant scheme is an effective and important way of developing local partnerships between the national health service and independent providers. I am sure that my hon. Friend will welcome this close partnership working. She, like the Government, believe in partnership working in this area. It can lead to an improvement in services and good use of public resources.
  Health authorities have a wide discretion over the terms and conditions that they apply to the use of grant by recipient bodies, though these must all be in keeping with the wider objectives of the NHS. As in their other financial dealings, they are required to exercise the standards of financial management control that is specified in their standing orders and standing financial instructions. These follow the normal conventions for public bodies. Authorities are subject to audit on that performance.
  The example of Warrington Integrate Services is unusual. In our experience, it is rare for relationships between voluntary bodies and health authorities, founded on section 64 grants, to give rise to such problems. That in itself is evidence of the robustness of section 64 as a financial mechanism. None the less, the Warrington Integrate Services case has caused us to consider the general lessons to be learned from what went wrong. I pay tribute again to my hon. Friend for helping us to do that.
  In particular, we have considered again the guidance that is available to health authorities in exercising their grant-aiding powers. As a result of the Warrington case, we have strengthened the guidance to help prevent, wherever possible, any repeat of this sort of problem in future. The revised guidance, which I am happy to send to my hon. Friend, emphasises the importance of there being a clear shared understanding about the purpose for which grant is, or is not, intended. It puts particular stress on monitoring to provide the necessary assurance that the original decision to award a grant remains valid, and that value for money continues to be secured. That is important at any time, but especially so when considering requests for renewal of grant.
  The new guidance makes it clear that grant renewal should be managed as an active rather than a merely passive process. So, for example, we would expect authorities to be aware if a body was starting to build up a cash surplus on the basis of grants received, and if so to adjust any future grants to take account of that. At worst, if it became evident that money has not been, or is not being, used for the purposes set out in the grant conditions, it would be open to the authority to seek recovery at law. I hope that my hon. Friend is reassured by the steps that we have taken as a response to the problems that she helped to identify with Integrate Services.
  I listened carefully to what my hon. Friend said about health authorities' responsibilities in working with the independent health care and social care sectors. Officials are working on guidance that will include model contracts to help social health and care communities to engage more effectively with the independent sector. It will make explicit the responsibilities of both the commissioners of services and the providers of care, ensuring the delivery of services that people need. The contracts will reflect
  946
  the national minimum standards which we are currently developing and which will be applied by the new National Care Standards Commission.
  In addition, we have published a concordat, which aims to develop the way in which the NHS should commission services from the independent sector. The Government see an important role for the independent sector, working in partnership with the NHS and local authorities, in the provision of services for older people. As highlighted in the NHS plan published earlier this year, the Government are developing a wide range of intermediate care services—as it were a bridge between hospital and home—to prevent avoidable admissions, to enhance rehabilitation and to enable as many people as possible to maintain or regain functional independence at home. That can be achieved in a number of ways, partly by investing more in NHS services, including giving new life to community hospitals, and partly by entering into new arrangements with the independent sector.
  The whole-system approach, which is essential to the development of intermediate care, should be exactly that. There should be an inclusive approach that recognises the contribution made by all partners in the health and social care system. As part of this approach, the Government are currently exploring the opportunities for developing arrangements that would enable the best use of facilities, both in the NHS and in the independent sector.
  The concordat highlights three particular areas for co-operative working—elective care, critical care and intermediate care—and it will be for local agencies to decide on the best way of providing services to meet the needs of their local population. The Independent Healthcare Association, a signatory to the concordat, has been contributing to the intermediate care debate and supports the introduction of contracts of the sort to be included in the guidance.
  The measures that we are taking to reform the current regulatory arrangements for social services will also help to ensure that social care providers, whether private, voluntary or statutory, are properly regulated in terms of their financial probity, management and provision of care.
  The Care Standards Act 2000 received Royal Assent in July, and I am grateful for my hon. Friend's support for the measures that we introduced in it. The Act will establish for the first time an independent National Care Standards Commission, responsible for regulating social care services. The legislation also enables the introduction for the first time of national minimum standards in care settings, and extends statutory regulation to care services which have not up to now been regulated at all.
  As I hope my hon. Friend will agree, all these measures will help drive up standards of care, ensure better public information about the quality of care services and improve safeguards for those who use these vital services.
  The National Care Standards Commission will ensure that all regulated care providers meet the Government's national minimum standards through a system of registration, inspection and enforcement. National standards, which are currently being developed, will apply to all providers. They will ensure that providers will be clear about the standards that they must meet to gain and maintain registration, and they will ensure that users and their carers know what they can expect as a minimum. They will cover key issues relating to staff recruitment and training.

  947
  National standards will also address issues relating to the way in which care organisations are run, including the suitability of those who manage care homes. Care providers will have to demonstrate the financial viability of the establishment and have in place appropriate financial systems to ensure continued good management.
  As my hon. Friend is no doubt aware, we are also establishing the General Social Care Council, which will be in operation from next October. It will raise public confidence in social care standards and promote best practice in social care.
  The council will be responsible for registration of the social care work force. One of its first tasks will be the publication of enforceable codes of conduct and practice for all social care staff. It will also draw up an enforceable code of best practice for employers, which will include good recruitment practices and rigorous checks on recruits, so that unsuitable people do not enter the work force in the first place.
  Providers will have to ensure that their staff receive a copy of the General Social Care Council code of conduct, and National Care Standards Commission inspectors will check that staff know what is expected of them. Registration of individuals will be subject to the person being of good character, being physically and mentally fit for all or part of the work for which registration is sought, and satisfying the requirements of conduct and competence that the council will lay down.
  948
  My hon. Friend raised the issue of advocacy services for providers and users, particularly in the area of learning disability. However, advocacy is not just about human rights, although I recognise the strength of the argument that she made. Advocacy is also about improving practice and services, because listening to what patients and users say about the services that they have received is an important lesson for all health and local authorities.
  Advocacy services can play an important role in helping people get the best out of the social care services that are available. Self-advocacy groups have worked with the Department on the new national learning disability strategy. My hon. Friend will be glad to know that that is to be published as a White Paper early next year, and we are looking at how we can develop services in this area.
  With the development of the new guidance for health authorities in relation to their dealings with the independent sector, and through the new regulatory system that will operate from April 2002 onwards, I hope that my hon. Friend will be reassured that we are taking coherent measures to ensure that users are fully protected and providers of care are properly regulated.
  I am grateful to my hon. Friend once again for raising these important matters with me, and I look forward to working closely with her in the future to ensure that our common objectives to improve both the quality of care and the use of public resources can be realised.
  Question ut and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past Seven o'clock.

Preamble
[SIR ALAN HASELHURST in the Chair]

Export Credits Guarantee Department
[Relevant documents: Third Report from the Trade and Industry Committee, Session 1999–2000 HC52 and the Government's response thereto HC 849.]
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Mr. Sutcliffe.]
2.30 pm
Mr. Martin O'Neill: I am pleased to have the opportunity to introduce this debate on the report that my colleagues and I on the Select Committee on Trade and Industry published some time ago on the future of the Export Credits Guarantee Department.
The Select Committee system, which has achieved a new status akin to the unofficial Opposition in recent years, has tried to introduce into our opaque system of scrutiny some openness and transparency. It was no accident that when the Department of Trade and Industry indicated that it wanted to conduct an inquiry into the mission statement and objectives of the ECGD, my colleagues and I thought that it would be a good opportunity to parallel the inquiry. We invited the respondents to the Government's request for views to meet us and discuss their concerns. We were fortunate in obtaining a wide spread of opinion and at some of our hearings we were able to gauge opinion across the board from industry, non-governmental agencies, financiers and so on. By and large, the ECGD received a reasonable rating and was thought to be a useful part of the Government's bureaucracy and administration.
It might be fashionable to suggest that it has taken an unconscionable time for this debate to take place, given that we produced our report on 11 January. However, I shall not take that route because I understand all too well that the Government were operating on a different time scale from the Committee.
The report on the Government's response was produced just before the House rose for the summer recess in July, only a little later than we might have anticipated. We have only just returned from the summer recess and we have been reasonably fortunate in obtaining this debate so early, so I shall not complain about that.
During the past 12 months, the ECGD has attracted attention, particularly of non-governmental groups in the United Kingdom, as a result of its association with the Ilisu dam project in Turkey. I shall refer to that shortly and some of my colleagues on the Select Committee and I will take the opportunity to visit the dam when we go to Turkey.
It might be useful to put on the record the services offered by the ECGD. It provides insurance and finance facilities. There are four generic insurance or guarantee projects and cover for exports of capital goods and services against non-payment or contract frustration. There is a fixed rate export finance scheme operating
268WH
fixed interest rates for loans to cover purchases of United Kingdom exports. That is set under Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development consensus rules.
Before I continue, I should like to ask the Minister to explain why a scheme such as the fixed rate export finance scheme, which is widely accepted and appreciated by industry, now seems to be under a degree of threat. It has been suggested that it is to be withdrawn. If that is the case, will the Minister tell us under what time scale the withdrawal process will operate? One of the more valued aspects of the ECGD would appear, in some people's eyes, to be under a degree of threat.
Cover is also provided for political risk on overseas equity and loan investments. That operates under the ECGD overseas investment insurance scheme. It is another reassuring service provided by the export credits agency. There is also an export insurance policy covering capital goods, major services and construction projects. It is important that we ensure that our people who are going out and trading in the world have a degree of certainty that they will not lose because of customer insolvency, late payment, contract non-compliance or circumstances involving an element of political risk. Those issues are certainly addressed by the services of the ECGD.
The ECGD offers guarantees to commercial bank lenders, with a 100 per cent. guarantee on all sums lent to overseas buyers. It also offers the supplier credit financing scheme, which allows UK companies to sell bills of exchange to their bank, once goods have been sent, or promissory notes once they have been accepted by the buyer. These facilities are all important in the stimulation and sustenance of trade.
The lines of credit that can be provided for several schemes and contracts simultaneously afford an important degree of flexibility. Project financing schemes in which the repayment of the costs of the project will come from its operation are particularly worthy of mention because they allow exporters a degree of flexibility. The exporters know that the money will be forthcoming once the project is up and running, but until that happens and earnings are accruing, there is no means of paying off the project loan. It is important for them to be able to obtain that degree of support and underwriting. That is a testimony to the flexibility of the ECGD. It was clear from the responses that we obtained from the industrial community that the ECGD has a good name internationally for innovation and flexibility.
The export credit agency world is highly competitive. The status of the international consortiums that pursue the big projects and potentially dangerous contracts can change quite easily. Instead of having a lead British company, one might end up with a Swiss or a French one taking the lead because the ECA in question was the most flexible and offered the best rates. We recognise that that is done under an umbrella of OECD consensus arrangements, so the possibility no longer exists for companies and countries to undercut each other or to provide additional assistance. Policing by the World Trade Organisation and other bodies now underpins that.

269WH
This is an international business. There are about 39 other ECAs across the world. The G7 members are probably our closest collaborators and therefore, by definition, competitors. If our businesses are to operate abroad and, more important, to consolidate links in the supply chain into the heart of British manufacturing, Britain has to be one of the major guarantors, with the ECGD providing the cornerstone of the support. It is often convenient for British international operators to join other partners from other countries. However, if they do so in a subordinate position, UK plc could suffer as a result of small and medium-sized enterprises, dependent on the big fish, being denied access to markets. The matter should be seen in a business and manufacturing context. It is important to get the funding in place at the right time.
Mr. John Butterfill: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that on several occasions there have been fairly unconscionable delays—caused largely, but not exclusively, by Treasury interference in the process—that have led to the lead ECA being changed from our own to one of the others, thus damaging British industry?
Mr. O'Neill: The hon. Gentleman, my colleague on the Committee, has anticipated my next point. ECAs operate under certain constraints, such as the budgetary constraints that are imposed by the nature of the public sector borrowing requirement. There is a limit to the amount that any country could, or should, be prepared to underwrite for business. It is only fair that criteria must be set down. No prudent underwriter in any kind of business would over-extend the credit that he was prepared to offer.
I worked in an insurance office for some years, and I remember that it was said of our actuarial colleagues—perhaps the most sophisticated group of underwriters—that they were people who found accounting too exciting. Underwriters are extremely cautious by nature, and it is correct that national underwriters should be so in respect of commercial undertakings of the kind that we are discussing. An ECA should be cautious.
However, there is an unnecessary degree of Treasury interference—that was one of the least attractive elements of the evidence that we received repeatedly from business advisers and others. Any broadening and deepening of the export credits arrangements will probably come not from an increase in public expenditure, but from a more formal and more flexible arrangement with the public sector.
At one time, the ECGD's activities covered all export credit arrangements—it had a virtual monopoly. That has changed. For short-term business, the private sector has adopted a healthy approach, underwriting the least risky of risks. It has perhaps been a wee bit too cautious about getting involved in medium-term business. This is not a matter of ideology—public sector versus private sector. On the big projects, with large sums of money at stake or a greater than normal risk, the sovereign state's underwriting is a priority.
Mr. Nick Gibb: In taking evidence from the private sector, did the hon. Gentleman not find that it had an appetite for taking more of the work that is currently undertaken by the ECGD?
Mr. O'Neill: Provided that the work is not too risky. The private sector was quite interested in taking over some other parts because it was emboldened by its experience in short-term business. Private firms were prepared to move into medium-term business. I gained the impression that there was not much resistance to that. Even in countries such as the Netherlands and France, which have privately run export credit guarantee arrangements, the bottom line is still provided by the Government. Whether it is carried out through a Government Department or through private financial institutions, the buck stops with the Government. People will not believe that the arrangements are copper bottomed unless the national Government's role is clear.
I see no fundamental problem with financial institutions wanting to extend their role. The bona fides are there for everyone to examine. Equally, however, if that happens, it should enable the Government to be more adventurous and deal with problems more quickly. It is not all down to the bureaucratic obstructionism of the Treasury, which is reported in the document and which I leave others to develop if they want to. It is equally important to recognise the first come, first served basis, which could cause difficulties if an application—regardless of how pressing it might be—is made at the wrong time of year. Some people will have to wait in the queue because only so much money is available for underwriting.
The need previously imposed on the organisation to wash its face annually has now been changed. We are now talking about a triennial rolling programme, which is more flexible and sensible. Sometimes the horses that we have backed economically do not even get to the starting gate, let alone the finishing line. We have recently been committed to providing financial support for projects in south and east Asia, which never saw the light of day. The freedom enjoyed by the ECGD at that time was such that it was unable to move to areas outwith the designated ones. If some contracts were not lost, they were certainly put in danger.
PSBR constraints and private sector involvement are key issues. The Select Committee accepted—and the Government have not demurred from this—that the National Economic Research Associates report made a case for collaboration, but that there remained a role for the Government to intervene where there was market failure. The Government are not only the insurer of last resort, but the ultimate arbiter of assessing how major problems can be resolved. The Select Committee believes that the Government's role should be viewed with a degree of flexibility.
We were, however, clearly unhappy about the dead hand of the Treasury. The scabrous fist of the Chancellor and others at times has a desperate effect. We made several criticisms about interference. It is not worth going through them all today, but will the Minister explain what is happening about the implementation of the KPMG report? That would be helpful.

271WH
It seems that the sight of the Treasury in retreat was a false dawn. It may have retreated a wee bit, but it has circled the wagons and is holding out once again. There was widespread criticism of the Treasury's unhelpful approach, which, whether wittingly or unwittingly, was not conducive to the good standing of the ECGD or those who sought its assistance.
We should consider other matters relating to the ECGD, such as its good projects in difficult markets scheme. Had this debate taken place 10 days ago, I wonder what the news would have been. There is an unwritten rule in our public administration system that the prospect of hanging—in whatever form—serves to concentrate the departmental mind. Thus, contracts that have been pursued interminably are somehow completed out of the blue when a debate or Select Committee hearing is forthcoming.
We welcome the construction of the Russian pipeline under the Black sea to Turkey. It has proved an incredibly complex undertaking, but we are somewhat worried that it takes two years for the first of such projects to see the light of day. Joined-up government seems a wee bit difficult to achieve in this area. I congratulate the ECGD on getting the contract through, but why did it take such an incredibly long time? Were there internal bureaucratic problems or misgivings about Turkey? My Select Committee colleagues and I are involved in trade as well as industry, and we shall visit Turkey, which is a candidate member of the European Union, in the next few months. We therefore want to know whether there were problems on the Turkish side or on the Russian side, or whether bureaucracy was at fault.
There are two further areas that I should like to discuss. I am not sure that the ECGD's response to environmental and developmental standards is anything more than a token one, and I remain unconvinced that the established criteria are as rigorous as they ought to be. There have been delays, and someone has recently been appointed to deal with them, which is encouraging. However, we need to be convinced about matters relating to the greening of Government, as it were. To what extent has the ECGD embraced such concepts? I must tell the Minister that some form of agreement within the Government on these matters is not enough by itself; there has to be an international initiative, so that common standards can be set. The OECD should be persuaded to give a lead in establishing international consensus on environmental standards. In adopting the moral high ground and securing an agreement, we must not be disadvantaged by others who choose their own standards. In this, the best should not be the enemy of the good. I should like to think that if our own house is just about in order—I still have misgivings about that—we should be entering the international debate and trying to secure consensus of a kind that would not disadvantage us in relation to our most obvious competitors.
I should like to think also that environmental standards would be applied to defence contracts. For too long we have glossed over some aspects of the matter and we need to examine carefully the way in which the ECGD operates in relation to defence as a whole. It is a long time now since I was deeply involved in defence matters, but when I was, I was always struck by the fact that people to whom one sells arms are invariably keen
272WH
to pay for them. They know that if they do not, the supply will dry up. I taught in an inner urban school and one day we were talking about the payment of bills. I asked, "Which bill must you always pay?" One of the kids said, "My dad always pays the telephone bill." This was in the days before mobile phones. I said, "Why is that?" and he said, "Because it's the only way he can keep in touch with the bookie." There is an element of that in the supply of arms.
I am never convinced that export credits are all that necessary in all defence contracts. Those concerned have a vested interest in being well defended, and if they want a degree of defence that calls for expenditure of the order that we are considering, they should be able to pay for it, or other ways should be found of dealing with it. The budget in question, which is always under constraint, should not be stretched and stressed in quite the way that it is with respect to some clients to whom we sell defence equipment.
I have no great objections to many of our defence sales. I am not arguing against them. However, the big guys who sell armaments by and large know that they can afford what they are doing. The little elbow room that they are given by Government might be better directed at other parts of the British manufacturing economy or British business generally. They could receive assistance in that way.
I am also concerned about the Turkish situation and the Ilisu dam. When my colleagues and I go there we shall consider how environmental criteria that the ECGD sets itself will be applied. We recognise that human rights issues arise and relate in many ways to the environmental question, with respect to the displacement of people and their rehabilitation. The issue of relocation in general needs to be considered. We have not set our face against the project. Like the Minister, we take the view, after a subsequent hearing on Ilisu, that unless certain standards are met, the project should not proceed. However, I realise that the jury, in the form of the international study to which the Minister has committed himself, is still out. We want to know the outcome.
The Committee supports the ECGD in its report. We want it to be a genuine, free-standing, arm's length agency with the degree of independence to which it is entitled. It has always been something of a hybrid. It has been answerable to the Department of Trade and Industry. It has been interfered with. Some Departments think that they should have a say, but do not, and others are glad that they do not. There needs to be a bit of status building and we should like to think that that will happen before too long. We recognise the importance of the Government's commitment to a new mission statement and of their continued sounding-out of this matter. It is vital to achieve the right result, because there is only one opportunity in every 10 years to carry out this exercise. I am not too impatient about the time that it takes, but I hope that this will not go on indefinitely.
We took the view that to be a successful agency, the ECGD should enjoy autonomy. It should be accountable to Ministers in Parliament and have the commercial freedom that is implied by getting the Treasury out of the way. It should also be transparent. Some of the misgivings that have been expressed, particularly by non-governmental agencies and

273WH
organisations, have resulted from the lack of information and transparency. Equally, there must be the competitiveness that requires the agency, on behalf of British business, to take on those other export credit agencies across the world that are, understandably, trying to get a share of the business.
While the Minister has been conducting his latest sounding process there have been signs that gaps in the agency are being filled. I welcome David Allwood's appointment as an environmental specialist. The consultation on business principles, matters of openness, debt sustainability, human rights, sustainable development, good governance and business integrity are welcome. One could ask why they were not there before, but, as we know, there is often rejoicing in heaven when one sinner repents. There may be sinners in Victoria street and elsewhere who are beginning to repent.
The ECGD is an institution that we would harm at our peril. It supports British business and enables us to get contracts. It ensures that not just high profile, large companies, but small companies down the chain are involved in an international market. That cannot be bad for British business. But we must also recognise that the world and our own society demand far more of our institutions than they demanded before. We want them to be competitive and successful, but we want them also to represent not just the best in British manufacturing and engineering, but Britain operating as a principled nation on the world stage. We are working for the best interests of the world economy and thereby helping our own people too.
3.2 pm
Mr. John Butterfill: I agree with much of what the hon. Member for Ochil (Mr. O'Neill) said. The ECGD has been doing an extremely good job. It has been constrained by certain elements that have already been mentioned. It performs an important role for British industry and commerce. It is a role that can be improved, but it has served the country well in the recent past.
I particularly welcome the role of Sir David Wright as a member of the advisory board. Close liaison between the ECGD and British Trade International, which I gather is now called Trade Partners UK, is important and can only help us for the future. I am also pleased to welcome the Minister for Trade, in his present role. As a former chairman of our Select Committee, he knows the details of the problem only too well. A man of his ability and integrity will be an asset to the role that he now fulfils. I hope that he can assist us further with some of the matters about which we are not terribly happy.
Many of us were somewhat disappointed in some areas of the Government response. The hon. Member for Ochil referred to our conclusion that the criteria for the ECGD should be autonomy, accountability, commercial freedom and transparency in competitiveness. It was therefore disappointing that the best that the Government could come up with was to say that normal Cabinet Office criteria would apply. That is not enough in this case, nor is it an adequate response to the Committee's thoughtful and considered report.
274WH
I remain anxious about autonomy. The hon. Member for Ochil referred to the dead hand of the Treasury and we took much evidence that showed that many applications to the ECGD for help were delayed by Treasury intervention, which cannot be allowed to continue.
The KPMG report is now available, somewhat belatedly. If such a report were needed, it should have been embarked upon some time ago. At least we now have it, and the issues that need to be tackled have been identified. The Minister must tell us when those issues will be addressed and when the proposals will be implemented so that the ECGD can act autonomously, subject only to overall economic criteria being supervised by the Treasury. In the meantime, until there is full autonomy, the right hon. Gentleman must tell us what will be done to minimise delays, because they are still occurring and that cannot be allowed to continue.
On reinsurance, it is true that more can and should be done with the private sector. I hope that the Minister will tell us what progress has been made.
I do not know how good projects in difficult markets are defined. As the hon. Member for Ochil said, why is Turkey considered a difficult market? Why did it take two years for the pipeline project from Russia to Turkey to be accepted? As far as I know, that is the only project under these criteria that has been accepted to date, but I hope that the Minister will tell me that I am wrong. Turkey should not be a difficult market; it is a member of NATO, a reliable ally, a country with which we have had close trading relations for a long time and a nation that has applied to join the European Community.
I gather that some of the problems with the Ilisu dam related to the dead hand not of the Treasury but of the Foreign Office. Much correspondence has passed between the Foreign Office and the Department of Trade and Industry on that subject. We want to know what is in that correspondence. What is the nature of it? Why were there so many delays? I understand that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry said that he was prepared to release the correspondence into the public domain, but that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office vetoed the suggestion. Perhaps the Minister will enlighten us on the subject when he replies to the debate. Has the Foreign Office vetoed release of the correspondence and, if so, why? If it has not, when will we be allowed to see it?
It is right that there should be environmental assessments of projects that we are financing. It is also important that environmental standards are applied equally by the ECAs of other countries; thus the participation of the ECGD in the international forums that discuss such matters is vital—it is vital, too, that our assessment process for environmental standards is at least as speedy as that of other nations. We shall not do ourselves any good if the time that we take to make such assessments is far longer than that taken by competitor nations and as a result we suffer the same disadvantages that we are hoping to eliminate in the case of the Treasury.
It has been suggested that the reinsurance facility may be withdrawn. Exporters certainly want it, and it is impossible to see how the process will continue unless the Government are prepared to be the reinsurer of last resort. Can the Minister tell us exactly what is intended?

275WH
Our report was published in January and the hon. Member for Ochil said that he did not think that it was bad that we did not receive a response from the Government until the end of July. I think that it is appalling that we had to wait more than six months and that the response arrived when Parliament was going into recess, so the issue was kicked into the long grass. Only now, in November, do we have the opportunity to debate our report and the Government's response. Why did the Government take so long to say so little? Again, I am interested to hear what the Minister has to say, although I accept that it is not his personal responsibility, as he assumed his present role relatively recently.
The initial Government response was that they still insisted on an annual break-even for the ECGD. I think that that has now been relaxed and that they allow for a triennial basis. It is encouraging that the Treasury at last realises that in the real world people work on other criteria than an annual basis.
3.12 pm
Dr. Jenny Tonge: I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) was prevented from leading for our party in this debate by a delay in reaching the Chamber due to personal circumstances. He probably knows more about the subject than anyone else here, so I hope that he will intervene later. I became interested in the subject in my role as Liberal Democrat shadow Secretary of State for International Development—I always hesitate before remembering my exact title.
The subject of the debate is dear to development and important to developing countries. I am well aware that there is a conflict, however. When I say anything about the arms trade, I am always told that there is a need to protect British jobs. I accept that but, as the hon. Member for Ochil (Mr. O'Neill) said, we are not talking about many jobs. The people involved could easily be deployed in other industries. I wish that the previous Government had concentrated a little more on turning swords into ploughshares and thought of alternatives to the arms industry. That also applies to this and succeeding Governments. I accept that that is probably a female view and that we must recognise the jobs interest when we consider export credit guarantee assistance to support British industries. The issue has broad effects for our economy and impacts tremendously on our policies on development and developing countries. There is a huge dilemma there, with which I shall deal in a moment.
Everyone wants developing countries to have modern facilities and energy—for example, oil wells, if they have oil—and to develop in the way in which we have developed in the past 200 years. However, a balance must be struck between those and human rights and environmental interests. That is a difficult balance to strike when considering development issues.
There is also the risk to the taxpayer. In a previous debate in this Chamber, I was told repeatedly by the Minister—I think that it was an out-of-hours debate—that there is no cost to the taxpayer and that it is a break-even situation. I simply do not understand or believe that.
Dr. Vincent Cable: If an export credit agency breaks even, that does not mean that it is
276WH
operating commercially. If the ECGD were operating like London Underground or the Post Office, it would be expected to earn a 6 per cent. return. No private-sector coal mine or textile factory would stay open indefinitely on a break-even basis. Therefore, a subsidy must surely—implicitly—be involved.
Dr. Tonge: My hon. Friend has just proved my point. His argument is difficult to answer—I certainly cannot do so—but I hope that the Minister will explain why there is no cost to the British taxpayer in export credit guarantees, especially when 95 per cent. of third-world debt is related to export credits. If we are to wipe out that debt, as part of our initiative on debt relief—which was very welcome and on which the Chancellor is to be congratulated—there must be a cost to the taxpayer somewhere. I look forward to hearing the Minister's explanation.

I am particularly interested in the criteria for granting export credit guarantees. The Select Committee report deals with that question. The hon. Member for Ochil said that he suspects that they are little more than a token. In fact, they are like the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development guidelines that are often quoted to us, which multinational companies always follow when they are operating in third-world countries. We all know that those guidelines are voluntary, and I suspect that the criteria for export credit guarantees are also voluntary. Will the Minister tell us who monitors them? Who can tell us whether they are being adhered to? Who knows what goes on once the ECG has been granted and the project gets going? Who carries out the audit and the monitoring and provides feedback so that we know that our money is being properly spent?
Human rights considerations are also involved. They relate to the way in which workers are treated, and the way in which people are displaced. A British company is involved in the extraction of oil in southern Sudan, and people are being killed, maimed and driven from their lands. They have nowhere to go and no consultation has taken place. Although we play only a small part, we are a party to what is going on there. We know that the OECD guidelines are not being met in all sorts of projects throughout the world. I ask again: who knows whether the ECGD criteria are being met?
Environmental impact assessments are another interesting factor. How binding are they? In my constituency, we have the threat of terminal 5 at Heathrow airport. There does not appear to have been an environmental impact assessment for that. Who, therefore, carries out such assessments for all these projects abroad before they are granted ECGs? How do we know that they have been carried out effectively?
There is also the debt consideration. A huge consideration for developing countries is whether they will ever be able to pay back the money underwritten by the ECGD. Should we encourage them to take out further loans in the form of ECGs to pursue other projects? That is a thorny question, because therein lies the debt of the future that we shall have to relieve.
The Liberal Democrats feel very strongly about ECGs for arms. They should be given only in exceptional circumstances, especially to developing countries. Everyone accepts that countries have

277WH
legitimate needs for defence equipment for their own defence and to build up their armed forces. However, those criteria have by no means been met in the past, and I suspect that they will not be in future. Indonesia is the example that springs to mind.
I could not fail to mention the Ilisu dam, especially given yesterday's rally in Parliament square—it has been mentioned twice already. It is becoming a scandal that, if it is not soon resolved, will cause much dismay to many people and much criticism of the Government. Huge environmental considerations are involved. Many people, mainly Kurds, will be driven from their lands, with no proper assessment having been made of where they are to go or what will happen to them. Hasankeyf, a valuable and ancient site, will be totally destroyed by the building of the dam, and what does the Foreign Office think about the prospect of water wars between Iraq and Syria?
Those arguments have been rehearsed in this Chamber and elsewhere, yet we are still receiving no answers from the Government. I remind the Minister that the mission to the area that was organised by the non-governmental organisations during the summer reported back that none of the criteria for granting ECGs to Turkey for the Ilisu dam have been met and that it would therefore be very wrong to go ahead with the project.
I have attempted to express my concerns about ECGs, Mr. Deputy Speaker. They have an ethical dimension and go to the heart of the Government's foreign policy, and we need some answers.
Mr. Eddie O'Hara: Order. Before I call the next speaker, I should point out that, much as I appreciate the thought of being elevated to the position of Deputy Speaker, especially as there is a vacancy for the job, I should be addressed as Mr. O'Hara in this Chamber.
3.22 pm
Mr. Stephen O'Brien: Thank you, Mr. O'Hara. It is a pleasure to be in this Chamber, despite the lack of people. You, the Chairman of the Trade and Industry Committee and I share an "0- before our surnames. As a proportion of hon. Members present, that must be a record for a debate in the Palace.
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in the debate. I congratulate the Committee and its Chairman on a balanced report on the suggested future role of the ECGD, and associate myself with the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill).
My interest in the role of the ECGD was sparked in 1994, when I took part in a trade mission to Argentina and Brazil led by the then Minister for Trade, Sir Richard Needham. In those days, I was an international business man, and my prime interest was inward investment into those countries. There were a large number of British exporters on the mission, as well as a senior ECGD representative and some talented and supportive DTI personnel. It became clear then, and in the course of my subsequent business dealings before I
278WH
entered the House just over a year ago, that the ECGD has been, and is, successful in a highly competitive international market.
That leads one to ask what is in need of change. There is merit in what the ECGD is doing, and we should ensure that that is recognised. It does a good job generally, and is crucial in enabling British business to penetrate riskier markets at some points in their cycle and in product development. It is vital for the support of seed-corn businesses, when trust through committed business relationships is the highest currency for building a presence and creating opportunity in difficult markets. In the long term, if the seed corn is right, opportunities to secure expertise, technological development and a return on research and development in this country can be taken advantage of and built upon.
I want to put on the record the fact that, in my experience, the staff at the ECGD are experts with a real motivation to help. I have met only the highest quality staff, but they have been hampered by constraints. They are leaders among export credit agencies, but it is a perception and perhaps a reality—that is why we are discussing the matter—that interference from the heavy hand of the Treasury risks putting us at an international competitive disadvantage instead of providing a solution and creating opportunities.
This is a good time to take stock and to think about the ECGD's mission. I note that the Government agree in their response that any changes to the ECGD's mission or status should take account of the competitive position of UK exporters and investors. They concluded that its core aim should be to continue to support the UK economy
by fulfilling its statutory purpose of facilitating trade by insuring UK exporters and overseas investors against medium and long term payment and political risks.
They then qualify that with their argument on the break-even position in a broader financial framework and the other criteria that should be taken into account. That begs the question: what is driving the desire for a change? If the Treasury is concerned, on behalf of British taxpayers, about a sizeable loss as a result of, for example, the Asia crisis, we must examine what happened. First, the Asia crisis was the same for all export credit agencies, so it was an equal hit internationally and competitively. How much did the ECGD lose as a result of the Asia crisis? The Minister may have the facts and figures. I suspect that the loss was small, but that may be the hook on which the Treasury is trying to hang a change.
Furthermore, as the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) said, there seems to be a widespread suspicion that the ECGD has become a tool of large aircraft, aerospace and defence manufacturers and perhaps the telecommunications companies, although they use the ECGD less. I believe that that suspicion is ill founded. In recent years there has been a dramatic shift in the industrial sectors, whose penetration of export markets from the United Kingdom, particularly in big projects, are most successfully represented by UK firms.
In 1994, when I was on the South American mission, the power generating sector was by far the most represented, but it hardly features today. Business today

279WH
is vastly more fluid in its ability to transfer sourcing. It is easy for the telecoms sector to switch production from one country to another, and the cost of credit is invariably the differentiator. The Italians and French now have the edge in the power generating sector compared with five years ago, but the UK has a strong position in the aircraft, aerospace and defence sectors and we want to ensure that that position is maintained. Who knows what will happen in the next five years? We could have the edge in satellites and robotics. We do not know. That shift in the market and the background to it must be addressed and accepted.
Another myth is that the ECGD should focus more of its support on small and medium-sized enterprises. That aim is admirable and laudable, but it displays a lack of understanding of the dynamics of the industrial value-added chain. I would argue, as does the British Exporters Association—this addresses a point made by the Chairman of the Select Committee—that the needs of SMEs are met through their role as sub-contractors to prime UK contractors, and such "primes" will front the relationship with the ECGD. Therefore, although the ECGD is supporting SME exports, the data is not recorded. Indeed, I doubt whether there is sufficient business for SMEs to act as prime contractors in their own right. The banks would not welcome such business—the ECGD would doubtless be keen to take note of the lead given by banks in this respect—given the fixed costs associated with undertaking ECGD business, irrespective of contract size.
The Minister for Trade (Mr. Richard Caborn): They would say that, wouldn't they?
Mr. O'Brien: Indeed. The Minister says, "They would say that, wouldn't they"—in a Mandy Rice-Davis sort of way—and we must accept that there will be a tension. It is a marketplace, and the boundary that will determine where the Government should step in is not permanent. It is a wavy line, and we accept that bankers are always going to push it to their advantage. However, SMEs benefit greatly from being sub-contractors to prime contractors. The accusation that the ECGD exists purely to support a few defence and aerospace companies is unfair.
Mr. O'Neill: The point that I was trying to make was that the degree of risk in many defence contracts is not as great as some would have us believe. There is a displacement effect, and access to facilities is denied to a cash-limited organisation such as the ECA. Therefore, it is unable to provide full assistance because it occasionally supports defence contracts that might not need support, but which have always received it and expect to get it.
Mr. O'Brien: I certainly accept that point. To be frank, there is also a politico-commercial point. To some extent, the ECGD—albeit as an arm's length agency—ties the Government into relationships in that sector. As a result, the confidence of all parties involved is affected. I accept that there is a capacity issue, but it is a moot point whether, if released, it would be taken by SMEs, given the fixed cost base and the way in which bankers operate.
280WH
I have thought carefully about the purpose of the ECGD, and we are faced with a conundrum. I recently received an e-mail from a banker on this subject. Although, as the Minister said, we must take such comments with a market pinch of salt, we should nevertheless note them. The banker said that his clients need a clearer steer on ECGD support when bidding for projects. At present, clients can be frustrated to discover that the whole evaluation process may turn into a farce, as they see it. As a result, they have no idea where they stand. Even a "yes" would be a start, subject to the ECGD being comfortable about environmental and productive issues, but that would not help a UK exporter who needed to submit a committed tender by a specific date. The conundrum is that we want the ECGD almost exclusively to support UK exporters, but the Treasury—quite understandably—wants to mitigate the risk and potential loss on the taxpayers' behalf.
Without modernisation and appropriate facilities in this Chamber I am unable to make a Powerpoint presentation, which would allow me to explain this matter by referring to a traditional, bell-shaped graph. The ECGD has traditionally taken the risk portion that is positioned at the far right-hand side of the bell graph. However, the Treasury is pushing the ECGD to consider spreading its risk portfolio into the larger part of the bell, which is currently occupied by others. Is that the right way to proceed?
I can see that the Treasury might like to increase its activity in those lower risk areas, by spreading its pool of risk. There is a perfectly normal insurance—based argument for lessening risk by participating in a broader pool. However, apart from the underlying philosophical argument, one must ask why it should be necessary to stray into an area that is already pretty well served by the private sector—by the banks, the insurance market or the bond issuers. As the hon. Member for Richmond Park said, there is an underlying Treasury subsidy, which could represent unfair competition in that market, as ECGD could try to move into the relevant sphere of business. The ECGD should remain in the sphere of activity in which it is most likely to add value. That is, by definition, the most uncommercial area, with the highest risk for the longest term. That would be in the national interest.
I want to comment on another aspect of the matter, wearing my very small hat as vice-chairman of the all-party Jubilee 2000 group, which works on promoting the relief of third-world debt—very often in the same countries as those involved in contracts covered by ECGD. A third-world Government may be reluctant to renege on a sovereign-to-sovereign debt. A real issue arises about the Government's role. Arguments may have taken place in the past about whether the whole of ECGD should be privatised, but a fair counter-argument is that sovereign-to-sovereign debt has a greater power to focus the minds of those who might renege than would the prospect of letting down private banks. That is relevant to the operation of the ECGD, and possibly a justification of Treasury subsidy.
I emphasise that the ECGD should focus on its job as a funder and insurer of last resort for the highest risk projects, in support of UK exporters. It is the role of other arms of Government to put constraints on its activities. It should not become the policeman, in place of other departmental responsibilities. A temptation has

281WH
arisen—and I note an example from what I believe to be the draft Liberal Democrat manifesto—to promise to end
subsidies for arms sold to foreign regimes by ending the practice of the Export Credit Guarantee Department using British taxpayers' money to support arms exports.
That is misplaced with regard to the ECGD, and is relevant to the proper operation of the export licensing system and the determination of public policy through the normal governmental arms and Departments.
A major concern, even in the Government's response to the Select Committee report, is that confusion exists on this issue. The confusion is about whether we are considering a funding and insurance arm of Government, which is in the national interest, or a role in addition to that as policeman and watchdog, whether operating uniquely or in partnership with other Departments. The Department should not need to perform that role if all the other Departments and mechanisms of government are established.
Mr. Butterfill: Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be curious if we were prevented from selling arms to a democratically elected Government who were threatened by internal revolution or external aggression? Surely at the very least we should want to protect democratically elected and responsible Governments?
Mr. O'Brien: We would all probably consider it unobjectionable, subject to the particular circumstances, to try to assist democratic countries that wanted to uphold democratic rights by way of the normal defence arrangements. I hope that those criteria are not exceptional.
Dr. Cable: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, although it is often correct to supply arms to a democratic Government seeking to defend themselves, as the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill) suggested, that is different from incurring risk and, implicitly, loss on behalf of the British Exchequer by providing export credit guarantees? The university of York computed figures for the Defence Committee suggesting that the cumulative losses incurred on defence contracts in the past were about £200 million a year.
Mr. O'Brien: I do not know of those figures. The right way forward is to ensure that our industries have proper support to access markets wherever they are available. Objections to arms sales should be dealt with through the export licensing arrangements. The hon. Gentleman mentioned a cumulative loss to the British taxpayer in a particular sector. Again, we should consider the operation of the licensing programme.
The experts and operators in the ECGD are supposed to have greatest expertise on funding and insurable issues, rather than on the political criteria used in the exercise of public policy, which is, quite properly, the responsibility of the DTI though the licensing system. I dare say that the Minister will refer to that.
Dr. Tonge: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman, but I accept his argument that the ECGD should not
282WH
have any involvement other than to back up the loan in arms sales. Does he agree that other Departments have little control over where this country puts its money? The Ilisu dam case will not go through the arms export control mechanism, so there must be some controls when we grant ECGDs.
Mr. O'Brien: I suspect that we must let the issue rest, because some parties want strongly to link the operation of the ECGD with political issues. My argument, which I hope I have made clear, is that the ECGD should be more the tool of UK exporters. The Government have other and better opportunities for ensuring that public policy is exercised in the fields to which the hon. Lady referred.
It is impressive and right that the British Exporters Association endorses the principles, rather than the mechanisms, behind concerns for the environment, human rights and the wider agenda. However, it is felt that there are other and better arms of Government to deal with them.
I think and hope that competitiveness is the common ground between us. As the Chairman of the Select Committee said, there must be a worldwide approach. We must have engagement with international bodies, which my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West mentioned, or at least within the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, so as to maintain—in the time-honoured but critical phrase to all business—a level playing field. UK exporters would not want the country to take such a lead and be so far out in front that it did itself damage. However, it is perfectly laudable and right that the UK should not only keep pace, but be a pace setter.
Whatever happens, it is the Government's and Parliament's role, through the Select Committees, to ensure that there is a reality check and that we do not deliberately take a stance that damages the UK's competitiveness. Many people live on this small island, so they must be able to maintain an essential manufacturing base. If the ECGD were less competitive, multinational companies would switch supply away from the UK, which would be regrettable and is to be avoided.
I referred to third-world debt relief. Debt forgiveness programmes should be limited to amounts that can be written off by the Government; they should not include amounts owing to UK exporters that are not insured. That is very much a banker's perspective, but it is a realistic approach. It is, quite properly, open to debate as a matter of policy by Members of Parliament. It could provide a means of securing agreement among international bodies, and could further an all-party approach to promoting debt relief.
It is proposed that ECGD becomes capitalised. How much capital would it be allowed? Would it be enough to cater for its on-going requirements? Given the difference between the capital allocation allowed for France and for Iran—I employ a typical banker's model—what will be the capital allocation for ECGD? One fears that ECGD will be behind rather than in front of the game in that respect, because the private sector has already been there. The issue is particularly pertinent in view of light aircraft and defence projects in the current arena.
One should not forget that UK exporters enormously value advice from commercial banks on structuring expertise, local buyer country intelligence and

283WH
associated commercial loans. If the ECGD were to enter into this field—beyond the wavy curve, to return to an earlier pictorial description—would all that be available as part of the package? UK exporters want to ensure that the ECGD's aim for transparency does not conflict with their undertakings of commercial confidentiality.
Will the Minister explain whether, if the ECGD is capitalised, the Treasury will allow it to have delegated authority to conduct business as it sees fit? The ECGD needs to refer projects to the Treasury when the underlying risk is below investment grade. Many observers believe that if the ECGD were permitted to decide internally on applications for risk down as far as BB level, it would cover the majority of ECGD business and would therefore confer the independence and autonomy that it requires.
I intended to explore the issue of risk return, but it was dealt with earlier. In conclusion, although all institutions must move within the markets, within the terms of public policy and within the mandates of Governments, I do not believe that the ECGD can or should change unilaterally without reference to other export credit agencies around the world. It would be wrong to introduce major changes without considering all the issues. The Select Committee report has provided a good steer, but more substantive responses from the Government would be helpful. Thus far they have provided only a short response.
I hope that the Government will reflect on my arguments and that their watchwords will be that the ECGD should focus, above all else, on areas where it adds value in the high-risk, high-tenor market. If it is granted proper autonomy, it should have the flexibility to respond in a proper, market-sensitive way in the best interests of UK exporters.
3.49 pm
Mr. Nick Gibb: We have had a good debate which may even have seemed exciting to anyone who left accountancy, as I did, because it was too exciting.
The ECGD's document and the Secretary of State's foreword to it give the impression that the review was forced on the Government by rules set by the next steps initiative, which required all Departments to review their status every five years. Ministers seemed to have no desire or motivation for the review and no agenda that they wanted to pursue. There are many words in the document, but little desire is expressed to move things on. Ministers appear only to have gone through the motions.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill) said, the ECGD performs an important role for industry and commerce. The insurance of export risk is an important business for Britain, which has a history as a great trading nation. It is also an important element of business in the City of London.
As the Select Committee states, the ECGD, set up in 1919, was the world's first export credit agency. Since then, there have been huge changes in the capital markets of the world, especially in the past 20 years. That is why, as the hon. Member for Ochil (Mr. O'Neill) said, in 1991 the previous Government privatised the short-term credit insurance arm of the ECGD, which
284WH
was acquired by the Dutch company, NCM Credit Management Worldwide. That company has expanded the business in a colossal way since 1991. According to the evidence to the Select Committee, in the United Kingdom alone it insures about £30 billion of business annually against the risk of non-payment. That compares with the ECGD's £3 billion of annual risk insured. Of course, there is a huge difference between the short-term risk undertaken in the private sector and the longer-term risk in more difficult territories undertaken by the ECGD.
Since the privatisation of short-term risk in 1991, the private sector has developed enormously and responded well to the new opportunities that the privatisation afforded them. The disappointment with the review is that it fails to take into account, or even to refer to, the developments. In the past few years, there have been considerable, almost seismic, changes in the world's capital market with new technologies, innovative products and better forms of communication. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien) said, there are political risks in a number of countries. That might be a sovereign debt risk or the risk of confiscation of assets by the regime—following the windfall tax on utilities, that is a risk that some American investors believe applies in Britain under a Labour Government. That aside, political risk can also involve a restriction on exchange controls and on taking money out of the country once it has been invested. As far as certain countries are concerned, such risks are beyond the scope of the private sector at a price that would be commercially viable.
There is, however, a swathe of business that lies between the short-term risk and high political sovereign risk which the private sector could adequately take on and which it may be able to do more cheaply and more innovatively than the ECGD. It could certainly do so more speedily than the ECGD does at present.
Having said that, there are some encouraging words in the review. Paragraph 1.31 states:
An ECGD should rigorously scrutinise any opportunities for contracting out functions, particularly any new functions to assess whether this would represent value for money and bring an improvement in service delivery.
Later, the report states:
The ECGD should build on its success of working with and complementing the commercial banking and insurance sector. ECGD should build on the success of the privatisation of its short-term business.
The report continues:
The ECGD should use the private market to manage risks through active Treasury management using hedging, capital markets and reinsurance instruments where this is cost-effective.
These are interesting words, but they lack substance.
The Government's response to the Select Committee report was a little more forthcoming. It said that
the Government accepts that it is not in the UK's economic interest for ECGD to compete with the private sector, but in order to maximise private sector capacity to take on risk, it should be in its interest to take on more of what ECGD does. ECGD should continue to work in partnership with private sector providers and should seek to fill gaps only where there is a genuine market failure and where it makes economic sense to intervene.
Paragraph 20 of the Select Committee report seems to show that that market failure relates principally to defence sector exports. The free market seems to have

285WH
less appetite for arms export than the state—something on which the left might wish to ponder. That paragraph is a key statement of Government policy. The question remains whether that intention will be delivered.
NCM, a major player in this market, wrote to the Secretary of State on 9 August. The letter says:
We were disappointed to receive from ECGD a letter—which indicated that whilst ECGD would be ready to work with the private sector on such projects Ministers had decided that it would be better to do that after substantial progress had been made on ECGD's agenda for change.
We continue to believe that there is a real and valuable contribution that the private sector can make to ECGD business. We do not believe that this will happen unless ECGD both encourages the private sector and makes room for the private sector to grow. None of this will even begin to happen unless ECGD begins a dialogue with the private sector and from what ECGD has said to us that appears unlikely to happen for some considerable time.
There is a concern and a suspicion that there is an element of empire protection within the ECGD and that key officials are dragging their feet in opening up more work for the private sector. An answer to that would be most welcome. Will the Minister also answer my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West, who asked what progress had been made by the ECGD in doing more with the private sector, particularly on the reinsurance front?
Will the Minister also expand on the capitalisation framework referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury, the key element of which he intends to put in place by April next year? The review document says:
ECGD is also aiming to have formulated by April 2001 the policy framework for a full capitalisation system to be introduced by April 2002 including the establishment of a trading fund.
The footnote says that the key characteristic of a trading fund is that it operates outside the vote system. Will the Minister say a little more about that and what safeguards there are to ensure that high-risk trading ventures are not undertaken at a possible loss to the taxpayer?
The hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) pointed out that if the ECGD were required to return 6 per cent. on its capital—the same point is made by Samuel Brittan in a series of articles although he refers to a return of 8 per cent—the break-even position would represent a loss. I should be interested to know how that matter is being addressed by the resource accounting process. Perhaps the Minister could address that, too.
Paragraph 22 of the Select Committee report refers to the recent losses incurred by the ECGD arising from business in south-east Asia and Russia. It says:
There is a question to be addressed concerning the time scale over which ECGD's break-even objective should be mentioned. Under WTO guidelines there is no definition of the time scale.
Has any member of the WTO complained about these losses?
Finally, the review document is very glossy. It is full of fine words and sentiments but it lacks the bold initiative to create a truly modern ECGD regime that Britain, the world's second largest overseas investor and the fourth largest economy, deserves. The question we
286WH

must now ask is whether the words will be followed by the kind of action they imply. I am sorry to say that the evidence to date is that they will not.
3.59 pm
The Minister for Trade (Mr. Richard Caborn): If I may say so, I thought that the end of that speech from the official Opposition was slightly disingenuous.
I accept genuine criticism about the delay that has occurred since January, when the report was submitted after the consultations finished at the end of last year. It took us until July to produce our response. It has not been easy. There have been wide-ranging discussions, as we wanted to ensure that all views were taken on board. To that end, we have also consulted other Departments. This is not only an ECGD document, but one that concerns the Government more generally. Many of the points raised in this debate, in the Select Committee and through other representations needed serious consideration to see how we should move the ECA forward.
We are grateful to the Select Committee on Trade and Industry for producing its report in January. It has helped us to clarify some of the points raised in the contributions to the consultation. It was a well-informed and timely contribution to the review of the ECGD's mission and status, and I believe that we have taken into account all the Committee's concerns in the review report that was laid before the House on 25 July. I shall deal at the end of my speech with any points that I have not covered, and any hon. Members who then wish to respond may do so if they can catch your eye, Mr. O'Hara.
When the Secretary of State and I launched the ECGD review in July 1999, we were aware that it played an important role in underwriting between £3.5 billion and £4 billion-worth of UK exports and overseas investment each year. The figure fluctuates each year; I believe that last year it was about £5 billion, and slightly less the year before. We saw the review of the ECGD's mission as an important opportunity—contrary to what the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb) suggested—to take a fundamental look at what the ECGD's role should be, and to make sure that it is ready to meet the challenges of the 21st century, of which there are many.
We particularly wanted to take a fresh look at the relationship between the ECGD's trade facilitation activities and the Government's wider international objectives. I should like to put that into context. British Trade International has been mentioned this afternoon. That represents a significant step taken by the Government to bring together for the first time the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Department of Trade and Industry to work together for UK export promotion and development. We have put an effective system in place, although I shall not go into details. It forms part of the bigger picture, in which the Government are trying to provide United Kingdom exporters with the best possible service. This is not an afterthought or a bolt-on. It is part of the integral approach that we have taken by providing good facilities to our exporters.
The ECGD covers about 3 per cent. of total exports from the United Kingdom. It is a financial facility to assist our exporters in the more difficult markets—their

287WH
activities represent about 3 per cent. of total exports, and, as the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton mentioned, involve about 20 per cent. of capital goods, which is also significant. However, let us keep our eye on the bigger picture, which is the percentage of the United Kingdom's total export goods.
British Trade International is the holding company for Trade Partners UK and Invest UK—the two bodies that make up BTI. We are trying to increase our exports by increasing those services to UK exporters. It is significant that every 1 per cent. increase in exports contributes just under £2 billion to the UK economy. We therefore take these matters very seriously. Contrary to what the hon. Gentleman was saying about our being forced into this position, we have made this an integral part of our service to UK exporters.
We also want to consider how we should balance the benefits of ECGD support against risks to the taxpayer. We must do that, as a responsible Government. Although there have been major studies of the ECGD's role in the past, none has been quite so wide ranging or attracted so much public attention as this review.
The Select Committee on International Development has also taken a close interest in the ECGD's role in relation to developing countries, and rightly so. There was public consultation, which took views from the ECGD's customers and other interested parties. A number of supporting studies were also carried out and published alongside the mission and status review, some of which have been mentioned during the debate.
The ECGD worked closely on the review with officials from other Departments. I pay tribute to the quality of the staff at the ECGD, especially to Marion Maddox and her team, who have produced a piece of quality work that will set the framework for several years to come.
I welcome scrutiny of the ECGD's role. Over the past year or so, it has faced intense criticism from some quarters, much of which is not well founded and gives little acknowledgement of the benefits that the ECGD can bring—not only to the UK's economy in the form of jobs for many thousands of firms in the supply chain, but to overseas countries that would not get much-needed investment were it not for the ECAs.
I am determined to tackle the perception that the ECGD is a force for evil, because I believe that it is a force for good. In taking that argument on, we want to shine a strong searchlight on the ECGD's operations to make it more transparent and to publish much more information, so that the full story is there for people to see. I accept that only a few people understand export credit guarantees. In the mid-1990s, when I had the privilege of chairing the Trade and Industry Committee, we considered the whole question of ECGs. It is a technical matter, but it need not be regarded as such. It is a facility to aid British exports, and that is how it should be regarded in the public domain. We must talk in lay persons' language, rather than jargon, so that people understand.
The ECGD is rightly praised by business for being one of the most innovative and flexible ECAs, but it needs to reform and modernise. That problem was tackled by the mission and status review. We need to make changes in key areas, many of which were usefully highlighted in the Committee's report. The review was
288WH
published before the recess. It sets out 38 conclusions representing a wide-ranging agenda for change, all of which the Government have accepted.
I shall run through some of the key features of the new direction that we have set for the ECGD. First, on the ECGD's core purpose, the new mission statement confirms that it should continue to provide insurance cover and guarantees to help UK exporters to win business and UK firms to invest overseas, bringing benefits to the UK economy. That is significant, because there was a big debate in the Treasury about whether that facility is necessary. The case had to be argued, was argued forcefully, and has now been accepted across the board.
The review confirmed that the private market is not consistently able to take on medium and long-term risk in non-OECD markets. UK firms also need to compete effectively against exporters from other countries supported by Government-backed ECAs.
In reality, ECAs represent an artificial market on which there are controls, such as those imposed by the World Trade Organisation, which are more refined in the OECD countries. That artificial market is subsidised in various ways, for which there must be ground rules. If we did not have it, many developments around the world would not happen. We must co-operate to ensure transparency and a level playing field. That is what we are attempting to do through the review and our role in international institutions.
There is a clear business case for the Government to continue to intervene to fill the gap in the marketplace. However, we also want to encourage the private market to develop so that the ECGD can continue to explore ways of getting it to share risk and expand its appetite for non-OECD medium and long-term risks. We will establish that dialogue over the next 18 months to two years, as we put in place the fundamental changes that will be brought about by the new mission and status review.
Mr. Gibb: Would it be possible to start the process a little sooner so that the private sector can work with the ECGD earlier, without waiting 18 months to two years?
Mr. Caborn: The hon. Gentleman says that we are dragging our feet, but that is not so. We have held a series of discussions with the private sector but, before entering detailed discussions, we want to resolve the funding arrangements with the Treasury so that we know the outcome of the mission statement. It is not right to enter those detailed discussions at the moment.
The private sector will not be able to use the state as a lender of last resort, but will have to take the risk, as it did with short-term risk. However, the Government want to work in partnership with the private sector. As I develop my speech and explain how the mission statement will be implemented, it will become clear that it is important to put some matters in place before entering detailed discussions with the private sector.
The second key issue is that a new risk management framework will be introduced. Taxpayers must be confident that the ECGD will continue to operate on a break-even basis with strong risk management discipline and appropriate financial objectives. As the Trade and Industry Committee said, the ECGD's

289WH
financial performance must be measured over a long period, but there has been much confusion about that. Its financial performance has been positive for business underwritten since it privatised its short-term operations in 1991. Few realise that it is a substantial contributor to the Exchequer. It has recovered much of the money that it paid out in claims on pre-1991 business from countries that have been able to pay their debts, and has written off large amounts owed by the poorest countries with great debt.
We have agreed that a strengthened risk management system should be introduced. That arose from the KPMG report, to which the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West referred, and its positive recommendations. A capitalised framework will be introduced, and the ECGD will move towards operating its business under a trading fund. That should enable the ECGD to have operational autonomy in making its risk decisions, allowing the Treasury to pursue the role of strategic oversight. That should address a number of the concerns that the Committee rightly expressed.
Mr. Butterfill: When is that process likely to be achieved?
Mr. Caborn: Discussions are going on now with the Treasury, and we have laid out the principles in the mission statement. The Treasury would like us to introduce the process sooner rather than later, and we want some steps to be taken before 1 April 2001 with completion by 2002. It is important that discussions with the Treasury are completed as quickly as possible.
There is a genuine desire to ensure that what we agree with the Treasury and other Departments will work. They see the advantage of an effective ECGD that can play a role not only in the United Kingdom but in the international community. I hope that we can resolve the issues with the Treasury sooner rather than later, with a move towards the establishment of a fund in 2001 and completion by 2002.
I know that business is concerned that the new framework may constrain the ECGD further and make its services uncompetitive with other export agencies. That was referred to during our discussions, particularly those with the Treasury. I assure this Chamber and business representatives that the ECGD's overall risk appetite and financial objectives will remain broadly the same. The ECGD will not be required to charge its customers higher premium rates to pay a return for the use of Government capital. To do so would be stupid, and would take the ECGD out of the marketplace. If it becomes too expensive for our people to export, they will be put at a disadvantage.
We need a sensible arrangement with the Treasury, and we must ensure that there is a level playing field in relation to other export agencies. We must not tie one hand behind the ECGD's back. I understand the concerns expressed by business, and I give an assurance that the arrangements will be broadly the same. That should give comfort to those operating in the export market.
The third major change in the ECGD's new mission statement makes it explicitly clear that its support for projects must take into account the Government's wider
290WH
international policies, including those relating to sustainable development, human rights, good governance and trade. The ECGD is currently consulting on a draft statement of business principles—taking a leaf out of the Commonwealth Development Corporation's book—which will guide business practice under the new mission statement. The business principles will cover matters such as openness, debt sustainability, human rights, sustainable development, corporate governance and business integrity.
Those principles will be published and regularly reviewed, so that customers and other interested parties will know where the ECGD stands. They will answer some of the questions that were posed this afternoon, and about which business is a little confused. Business is being consulted on the mission statement, which will embody those principles, and as a result there will be greater certainty.
Dr. Tonge: Will there be monitoring and assessment to ensure that firms stick to those business principles?
Mr. Caborn: If the hon. Lady had waited for my next sentence, her question would have been answered. From 2001, the ECGD's annual report to Parliament will cover its performance against the business principles, as well as its financial outturn. All hon. Members will have access to that report, as will the general public. It will be up to the parliamentary authorities to decide whether the report should be debated in the House or scrutinised by the Trade and Industry Committee, and we will provide the relevant information if it is needed.
This is a major step forward. It is right that the ECGD should promote the Government's policies more actively, and in ways that are consistent with its core aim. It should also use its leverage to support projects that are economically sound and to promote the Government's international policies. I do not pretend that such principles will always be easy to apply, and the issues relating to individual cases will need to be balanced very carefully. I am also conscious of the need to ensure that UK firms are not put at a competitive disadvantage by being burdened with unnecessary processes and additional costs.
I am delighted that the ECGD has taken steps to boost its expertise by appointing an adviser on business principles. The adviser has worked on this subject with the Commonwealth Development Corporation, and therefore brings relevant experience. Although I am sure that the policy is right and very much in tune with the responsible approach that many major firms currently take, I understand and share the concern of business that the ECGD's policy and process for handling sensitive cases should not get ahead of other ECAs. The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and I want the ECGD to compete with the best of other ECAs and set an ambitious agenda for multilateral reform, so that our exporters are able to compete on a level footing.
I shall briefly list some other changes through which the ECGD will try to strengthen its operations. Yesterday, I announced a package of improvements to the ECGD's products for SM Es. That is the start of a campaign to widen the ECGD's customer base, working in conjunction with British Trade International, the Small Business Service and the regional development

291WH
agencies to spread the message to the regions. I hope that smaller companies will react positively to this initiative.
The ECGD should offer support to as many exporters in as many industrial sectors as possible—provided that the ECGD, rather than private sector insurance, is appropriate. Although the ECGD is often perceived as helping only a handful of big companies-a perception that we have heard again this afternoon—many smaller exporters already benefit from direct support from the ECGD. For example, in the past month the ECGD announced that it had supported a small firm called Gall Thomson, from Great Yarmouth, which sold an order of anti-pollution equipment for Mexico worth $740,000. That is not a big order for the ECGD. The body also supports Angloco Limited from Batley in Yorkshire, which last year won the "Best Exporting Company" title in British Trade International's export awards for smaller businesses for a £2.5 million order of firefighting equipment for the Government of Barbados.

The ECGD is important to the medium-sized company, although perhaps not vastly so in the scale of things. I have recently returned from Aberdeen, where I visited people from British Petroleum—350 small and medium-sized supply companies for that organisation are trying to strengthen their supply chain. Clearly, those SMEs are seeking additional opportunities in, markets in which they operate in conjunction with the bigger contractors. The agency could assist them in that regard, although I agree that the biggest support for companies of that type will be the supply chain. However, it is our duty to make the facility more sensitive and user-friendly to those companies, if we can.
Mr. Stephen O'Brien: What the Minister said begs a question that he may not be able to answer today, but perhaps the answer could be injected into the review. As part of the encouragement given to small and medium-sized businesses, might a regime of differential pricing be contemplated?
Mr. Caborn: I do not know about differential pricing, although it is something that we could consider. We are considering introducing differential procedures so that, when a £500 million facility is being covered for a big contractor compared to one of £2.5 million, the same criteria—or, rather, the same procedures—are not applied. Procedures can be moved quickly, as they often need to be. For the first time in a long time, we are going through the various organs serving small and medium-sized companies such as the Small Business Service and the regional development agencies and encouraging them to be proactive in terms of that new facility.
I want more exporters to be helped in the way that I have described. That will provide additional material support for them as they struggle to overcome immense social problems by allowing them limited resources. The ECGD will consider its product range again and encourage overseas multinationals and buyers to source from the United Kingdom.
To modernise its service delivery, the ECGD will be doing more to develop its e-business functions and strengthen its service standards. By working with the Department for International Development and others, the ECGD should also be able to play a more prominent
292WH
and positive part in the poverty reduction and sustainable development programmes of the poorer developing countries. It will continue to play a central role in implementing international and national debt forgiveness policies, including the United Kingdom's unilateral 100 per cent. debt relief policy, which the Chancellor announced last December. Officials from the ECGD were helpful in the Paris Club in bringing me their technical expertise and ensuring that the programme progressed. Sometimes, it is not acknowledged that we use the expertise of those officials to assist in the development of the third world.
In March, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry announced that the ECGD would not seek any further payments from Mauritania, which was the first country to be given relief under the United Kingdom scheme. Since then, a further nine countries have qualified for United Kingdom relief: Benin, Bolivia, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Mali, Mozambique, Senegal, Tanzania and Uganda. That brings total United Kingdom relief to those 10 countries to $750 million.
The ECGD is committed to writing off more than $1 billion of debt owed by the heavily indebted poor countries by the end of the year. That will have a twofold benefit. First, it will underpin the efforts of those countries to achieve economic sustainability. Secondly, it will provide additional material support for them as they struggle to overcome immense social problems by allowing limited resources to be diverted from debt servicing to health care, education and similar poverty relief measures.
To put the matter in the context of our wider approach to trade, we have argued forcefully in the European Union that the heavily indebted poor countries, which represent less than 1 per cent. of world trade, should have tariff-free and quota-free access to the European markets. That suggestion has been accepted. One of the major subjects for discussion at the World Trade Organisation in Seattle was how we could bring into play the poor countries to ensure that they had access to the developed world's markets.
As we reduce the debt, conditions are attached. The new resources go to health, education and the development of those countries' economies. Part of the virtuous circle will be for the goods and services from those countries to enjoy quota-free and duty-free access to the developed world's market. That is a sustainable virtuous circle for those developing economies.
Once debt relief has provided a new basis from which those countries can move forward, the focus will turn to the provision of new ECGD support. Of course, when considering what new credits to offer to countries that are emerging from indebtedness, ECGD's focus will be on debt sustainability. It is in no one's interest to recreate the old debt problems that we inherited, which collectively, we are trying to resolve.
Dr. Tonge: The Minister is generous in giving way. He may not be able to answer my question now, but perhaps he will write to me. Uganda has achieved completion point for debt relief and presumably has now had all its debt wiped out, including the ECGD's.

293WH
At what point will it be considered for more ECGs? I understand that the Bugagali project to replace the Jinja dam would probably qualify for such a grant.
Mr. Caborn: If the hon. Lady will bear with me, I shall deal with that.
The ECGD announced at a recent seminar—held jointly with the Department for International Development and attended by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development, exporters, representatives of overseas Governments and NGOs—that it was to use Uganda as a pilot for the new more proactive approach to which I referred. The ECGD will try to identify Uganda's needs, collectively with the various stakeholders there and put together cover packages in a way that is consistent with the development plans for the country. There will be a requirement not to recreate an unsustainable debt burden.
As a practical example of what can be achieved, I recently announced an aluminium smelting project in Mozambique. It is producing metal six months ahead of the scheduled dates, which shows how the ECGD overseas investment insurance can help poor countries to develop their economies.
It has always been possible to perceive the ECGD as a force for evil, because it has been depicted as having a role in the arms race. Now we can cite many instances of its being a force for good, without which countries such as Uganda and Mozambique would not be able to proceed with the development of their economies, which leads to a win-win situation in the development of the trading regimes that we want.
The ECGD does not normally support defence sales to the poorest and most indebted countries. Priority is given to exports that support economic and social recovery and the development of the country. On 11 January, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer extended the ban on the use of export credits for non-productive expenditure to 63 countries. The United Kingdom already leads the way with its productive expenditure policy and we shall work towards bringing other countries into line with our position. We have been working within international organisations to ensure that our policies will be accepted across the international community. Bit by bit, we are moving into that arena.
Some people are genuinely critical of past support for poor, especially HIPC, countries when it has been a race to the bottom. That can be stopped only if there are international standards to which we all subscribe and apply. Via the World Trade Organisation, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, we are building a framework for operation that is gradually being accepted by all the major countries that are developing ECAs. I am proud to say that the UK has been in the lead. I was involved a few months ago with the OECD on the development of multinational co-operation on anti-bribery measures.
I shall return to the Ilisu dam in more detail later. The five criteria that we set out were in line with the OECD's internationally agreed criteria. As I said, little by
294WH
little,we are creating a framework whereby we can stop the race to the bottom and use the facilities in the most creative and productive way. That represents a win-win situation.
On ECGD support for defence exports, let me make it clear that it has always operated in line with Government policy—providing cover only where appropriate licences have been issued and remain valid. It will continue to do so. Strengthened Government arrangements are also being introduced. The role of the Export Guarantee Advisory Council is being radically reformed, so that it advises the ECGD on the policies and procedures needed to fulfil the new mission—not on individual risk decisions. Outside directors will also be appointed to strengthen the ECGD's management board.
On the perception that ECGD is secretive, I spoke earlier about it reporting its performance against business principles. It will be improving its transparency by publishing more information about its operations, processes and systems, while respecting the legitimate confidence of its customers and other parties to commercial transactions. The ECGD is also undertaking more consultation with customers and other parties that have an interest in what it does. It will collect and publish more information on the benefits that it provides to the UK economy and UK firms in the supply chain, as well as the benefits for developing countries.
All that is important and I have started writing to all Back Benchers. When the ECGD has been involved in orders, a letter is sent from my Department, setting out the details of the order and what jobs are developing. The same applies to specialist groups of Back Benchers as well as Government groups. We want people to understand the ECGD's role in the 21st century. The drive to greater openness should serve to shine a strong searchlight on its operations.
I shall attempt to answer some specific questions. First, I was asked about the Ilisu dam. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made clear on 22 December, several conditions—relating to resettlement, water flow, water quality and the preservation of cultural heritage—will need to be satisfied before any decision to provide ECGD support can be taken. That remains the case today. Those conditions, particularly on resettlement, will be measured against OECD criteria.
We should remember that Turkey was a founder member of the OECD and was party to the codes that were laid down. We should also remember that Turkey wants to accede to the European Union and that it uses only 15 per cent. of the power used by some other member states. One area of the country is very poor. Resettlement must conform to international standards. Displacement will take place, but the figures vary. We should also recognise that 5 million people could gain from this type of development. The Swiss are the lead credit agency. If we walk away from the problem, it will not resolve the power deficit problem of that mission. Our position is clear. As long as the project conforms to international standards and Turkey accepts that, it is the right way to move forward.
It can seem arrogant for people to tell others what they should or should not do in respect of their development. Our involvement comes at a price—that

295WH
standards are agreed internationally. This country would be worse off without its dams, but they were constructed many years ago. Countries are at different stages of development. We must be careful not to be too arrogant, saying that we know better than everyone else so our standards should always prevail. Five criteria must be met and the standards have been agreed to international levels. It will be a transparent process. We shall measure the criteria and take our decision.
Mr. Butterfill: Can the Minister throw any light on correspondence between his Department and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office? I asked about the apparent readiness of his Secretary of State to release it and the reluctance of the Foreign Office to do so.
Mr. Caborn: Yes, I can. There is no disagreement between us and the Foreign Office: we are at one. We are part of joined-up government and we move in concert after wide consultation. We have not agreed to release the correspondence between the Foreign Office and the ECGD. We are in agreement with the Foreign Office that the Government response should answer concerns about its role. I do not know what papers the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill) has been reading.
Mr. Butterfill: I thought that the Minister believed in open government.
Mr. Caborn: As the hon. Gentleman knows, we are an open Government. He has been in government and he knows how Governments operate. When there are discussions between two Departments, the decision is open to scrutiny, examination and challenge. As the hon. Gentleman well knows, however, we do not put the ministerial correspondence into the public domain. That would not be in the interests of good government. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman understands that probably better than most here this afternoon.
The blue stream gas project from Russia to Turkey involves $120 million of UK goods and services. The problem has been with Russia, not Turkey. Moreover, it is not solely a UK project: Italy is involved. It is a consortium of ECAs and the Italians are the lead agency. I can write to hon. Members to give them more information about the problems if they wish. They have taken some time. Getting the ratings and some assessment of the credit risk for Russia has not been easy.
Mr. O'Neill: I am concerned that that was only the first such project. Are there any others in the pipeline and will the teething problems with this project enable us to move more quickly on future projects?
Mr. Caborn: I hope so. The regime in Russia has settled down somewhat. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has been there this week. A number of people have been there to discuss how we can assist in reconstruction. We asked the ECGD officials to make a realistic assessment. That is what KPMG told them. They are doing so and are coming back to us. There has been a high political risk in Russia, which is probably
296WH
settling down, and so I hope that the experience that we have gained from this scheme will assist us and make future decisions easier.
Mr. Butterfill: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way once more. As our Committee will shortly visit Turkey, it would be helpful if he confirmed that, although the project came in the category of good projects in difficult markets, Turkey is not considered a difficult market.
Mr. Caborn: Yes. Turkey is on cover. The rankings of those that receive ECGD cover are followed. The situation with the gas line has been slightly misinterpreted, because of the Russian end. We have considered a number of issues. There are housing schemes following the earthquake in Turkey, and we have been able to use facilities there.
The hon. Gentleman has just jogged my memory. We can help countries such as Turkey to improve their standards. Thames Water built a dam on the fault line in Turkey to standards above those asked. It did not breach in the earthquake and our civil engineers deserve credit, because they made a realistic assessment of the problems that could emerge with a fault line. They received support from the ECGD. Everyone commended the dam because it did not breach, which would have caused a terrible disaster. Such stories are never told in the papers or on television, but damn good projects by British engineers provide high-quality facilities around the world. We can be proud of that.
Mr. Butterfill: That is helpful, because we shall visit the earthquake zone as part of our task. The right hon. Gentleman may be interested to know that another good example of British engineering is the large silos designed by Mouchel and Partners, a British firm. They also survived the earthquake intact, whereas everything around them fell.
Mr. Caborn: One can only hope that the hon. Gentleman's comments and mine will be reported in the usual way through the press. He also asked about Treasury interference. I hope that negotiations will be completed and that the scheme will be fully operational by 2002.
Several hon. Members have mentioned reinsurance. I can only reiterate what we said in response to submissions. The UK led the way in privatising the ECGD's short-term credit business, subject to retaining a reinsurance role in a handful of markets. That success helped to develop the private credit insurance market, reducing contingent risk to the taxpayer without jeopardising UK export performance. The ECGD's report on the provision of its reinsurance for export sold on short payment terms is published alongside the mission and status review report. The Government have agreed that the ECGD should continue to provide short-term reinsurance, with the ultimate aim of helping the short-term export credit insurance market in the UK to be competitive and free standing without Government reinsurance.
The main conclusions of the reinsurance review are that the ECGD should eventually aim to withdraw from offering insurance for short-term business. Until demand ebbs away, the ECGD will carry on providing reinsurance as the insurer of last resort.

297WH
The Chairman of the Select Committee asked whether fixed-rate export finance would be withdrawn. The scheme will not be withdrawn. However, in common with other countries, we are trying to eliminate such provision. That is the object of the exercise that has been agreed internationally. We are trying to withdraw subsidies, in line with international agreements and managing risk in accordance with the best commercial practices. The private sector should take on such work when it is possible. We want to ensure that there is a level playing field; therefore, the withdrawal will be with international agreement.
The Chairman of the Select Cttee mentioned environmental standards in an international context. The ECGD has continued to lead on such matters. We can be proud of this country's leading role in the international arena, especially in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development discussions to develop a framework for a common approach by ECAs to environmental issues.
It has been agreed that the ECGD should energetically pursue multinational negotiations to preserve the competitiveness of United Kingdom exporters. Significant progress has been made by the OECD working party on export credits and credit guarantees in the past 12 months towards fulfilling the mandate set by the OECD Ministers at the G8 Heads of Government meeting. An OECD action statement on the environment was agreed in February. We are setting the international agenda and leading with the best, although I agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for Ochil said about being too far in front.
My hon. Friend also mentioned the cost to taxpayers. The ECGD breaks even—it is not regarded as having a subsidy—in accordance with OECD and World Trade Organisation requirements. Again, it is a matter of
298WH

having a level playing field. The ECGD is not charged 6 per cent. or 7 per cent. on its returns, but that is agreed internationally by the WTO and the OECD, which lay out the framework in which the export credit agencies operate. If the ECGD were to be burdened with that charge, it would be uncompetitive compared with the other ECAs.
The ECGD has an obligation to break even in three years and, to date, has paid surplus moneys back to the Treasury. To prove the point on defence exports, it was said that we were losing about £230 million a year. That is not true. Having considered the ECGD overall claims payments in the period immediately after 1986-the recession—I believe that that assertion completely ignored the payments made subsequently against the loans and transactions. We continue to draw some of what was rescheduled back to the Exchequer. I suppose that in one respect the figures used were true, but if one looks at the bigger picture of the total contract and the money that is now coming into the United Kingdom, one sees that it is not true to say that we are losing £230 million a year.
I have covered most of the points that were raised. I thank the Select Committee for its report, which has helped us a lot. I hope that our mission statement will help a new ECGD to evolve that will play a significant part in exports and be fully integrated into the new procedures and structures. We should bear in mind that every 1 per cent. increase in exports from the United Kingdom is worth nearly £2 billion to the United Kingdom economy. We shall continue to modernise and keep under review everything that can be done to assist in that aim. We shall keep international standards for ECAs in mind and continue to take the lead in the international institutions.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at eleven minutes to Five o 'clock.

DEFENCE

  Royal Navy Ships
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Royal Navy ships have been ordered since May 1997; and on what dates. [134927]

  Mr. Hoon
  On 19 June 2000, the Minister for Defence Procurement announced the placing of an order with Vosper Thornycroft (UK) Ltd. for two new Multi-Role Hydrographic and Oceanographic Survey Vessels together with 25 years contractor support. The ships, to be named HMS Echo and HMS Enterprise, will be built under sub-contract at Appledore Shipbuilders in Devon, and are due to enter service in 2002 and 2003.

  During the debate on Defence Procurement on 26 October, I announced that we intended to order four alternative landing ship logistic (ALSLs), subject to negotiation of satisfactory terms and conditions.

  I also announced that, subject to final negotiations, we intend to sign a 25-year private finance initiative contract with AWSR Shipping Ltd. to provide for the strategic sealift capability. This will involve the construction of six new roll on roll off (RORO) vessels; two at Harland and Wolff in Northern Ireland and four in a German shipyard.

  It is also intended that, subject to satisfactory arrangements being agreed, the order for the first new type 45 Destroyers will be placed later this year. It is planned that the first and third ships will be assembled by BAE Systems Marine and the second by Vosper Thornycroft (UK) Ltd.

  TRACER Programme
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the future of the TRACER programme as a bilateral programme with the United States of America. [135834]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 31 October 2000)Bilateral collaboration is continuing on the UK's Tactical Reconnaissance Armoured Combat Equipment Requirement (TRACER) and the US Future Scout and Cavalry System (FSCS).

  The current phase of the programme is of 42 months duration and finishes in July 2002. The programme is proceeding to schedule and both Governments are pleased with progress to date.

  In parallel, the UK is conducting studies to examine the use of unmanned air vehicles to complement ground-based reconnaissance. The outcome of these studies will be used to inform the UK decision on the optimum mix of platforms, technology and sensors and the role that TRACER will play in the Army's future battlefield information gathering.
  542W
  Neither nation is committed beyond the current phase. At the end of this phase there will be a comprehensive review, and the decision on how to proceed will take account of all relevant factors.

  Military Graves
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the non-war graves where maintenance to an appropriate standard is impossible for(a) climatic and (b) political reasons. [134307]

  Dr. Moonie
  The standard of maintenance of those service graves designated non-world war graves varies according to the prevailing weather and local climatic conditions in the countries in which the graves are located. I am able to confirm however, that in general there are no non-world war graves that are impossible to maintain to the appropriate standard for climatic reasons, though they may not appear the same as those located in a typical war grave cemetery in, for example, north-west Europe. Local conditions are taken into account when selecting the material used for headstones or markers and the design of the cemetery.

  The changing worldwide political situation does mean that at times cemeteries containing war graves and non-world war graves are difficult or impossible to maintain. Currently, activity is restricted or impossible in Algeria, Ambon (Indonesia), Iraq and Mogadishu (Somalia). It can be difficult to maintain cemeteries in Northern Cyprus, parts of the Middle East, particularly Libya and China, and even Northern Ireland for political and security reasons. Restoration work on non-world war graves maintained on our behalf by the Commonwealth War Graves Commission in Nigeria, Sierra Leone and Trincomalee (Sri Lanka) is resuming.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the responsibilities of the Army Casualty Cell. [134305]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Army Casualty Cell is responsible for the following:

  (a) monitoring and recording all Listed Army casualties in Peace and War and ensuring next of kin are notified in each case.

  (b) repatriating the remains of those soldiers who die overseas and remaining long term point of contact for next of kin.

  (c) providing an Army casualty helpline in the event of a major casualty incident occurring in either peace or war.

  (d) advising on arrangements for public expense funerals of those soldiers who die in service, when requested by next of kin.

  (e) erecting standard military pattern headstones on the graves of deceased soldiers, when requested by next of kin.

  (f) focal point for policy issues relating to post 1947 Army non war graves in the UK.

  (g) overseeing the maintenance of post 1947 tri-service non war graves overseas where not already managed by another agency.

  (h) facilitating the flow of information from concerned relatives to service personnel and their dependants serving overseas.

  (i) authorising compassionate leave and travel back to the UK in cases of the death or imminent death of close relatives.

  (j) authorising the travel of close relatives to visit service personnel who are very seriously ill overseas.

  (k) identification of the remains of recently discovered soldiers killed in either of the World Wars, tracing and notifying the remaining family and organising the funeral.

  543W

  (l) answering inquiries from members of the public and Members of Parliament in respect of subjects relating to the Army Casualty Cell's activities.

  (m) monitoring Boards of Inquiry into cases of deceased soldiers and arranging for release of the Board of Inquiry report to the next of kin.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence from 1 October what will be the annual budget of the Army Casualty Cell at Upavon in respect of non-war graves in(a) the UK and (b) overseas. [134304]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Army Casualty Cell assumed responsibility for overseas non-war graves from 1 October 2000, but will not take over the financial responsibility until April 2001. £180,000 has been allocated for this task. The maintenance of non-war graves in the UK is the responsibility of Land Command and is funded as part of their overall budget for property management. It follows that the Army Casualty Cell has no annual budget for this purpose.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the current annual budgets for(a) the Royal Navy and (b) the Royal Air Force in respect of their non-war graves in the UK. [134306]

  Dr. Moonie
  Both the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force meet the costs of funerals, burial plots, headstones, marker stones and related costs for personnel who die while in service. In financial year 2000–01 the Royal Air Force allocation is £70,000. The Royal Navy allocation is not separately identified. The costs of subsequently maintaining non-war graves are met from local works service budgets and are not separately identified by either service.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence in each of the past five years what has been the annual contribution from British Government sources to the South African Heritage Committee in respect of Boer War graves. [134297]

  Dr. Moonie
  Ordinarily, the British Government make an annual donation of £10,000 to the South African Heritage Resource Agency (SAHRA) towards the maintenance of Boer War graves. In 1999, however, it was decided that an additional donation of £5,000 should be paid for three years, ending in 2001. This temporary increase in the contribution was established in order to support the SAHRA's initiative to employ a single contractor to maintain all British graves throughout South Africa.

  £

  1996

  align="right">10,000

  1997

  align="right">10,000

  1998

  align="right">10,000

  1999

  15,000

  2000

  align="right">15,000

  Fuel Tankers
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the specification is of fuel tankers used by(a) the Army and (b) the other armed services; how this differs from the specification of commercial fuel tankers in use in the UK; and if he will make a statement. [136061]
  544W
  Mr. Spellar
  The armed forces currently use three sizes of bulk fuel tanker (12,000 litre, 22,500 litre and 32,000 litre). The 32,000 litre fuel tanker is commercially based and has a similar specification to modern commercial fuel tankers. It employs commercial standard safety systems, is fully compliant with "Accord European relatif au transport des Marchandises Dangerous par Route (ADR) Directive" requirements and approved for use under the petroleum industry's Safe Loading Pass Scheme (SLPS). The 22,500 litre and 12,000 litre fuel tankers are older; they are not fully compliant with ADR regulations as they were constructed to specifications reflecting Carriage of Dangerous Goods (CDG) regulations in force at the time of manufacture.

  In general terms, the specification of military tankers is enhanced to optimise them for military use. Military tankers differ from commercial tankers in the numbers of filling and discharge points; they are fitted with an integral pump to permit cross-loading and kerbside refueling of convoys and tend to be tougher in construction.

  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many service personnel are qualified to drive commercial fuel tankers of the type in use in the UK; how many were qualified to do so on 1 January; how many are undergoing training which would enable them to drive such commercial fuel tankers; and if he will make a statement. [136060]

  Mr. Spellar
  Some 300 service personnel are qualified to drive commercial fuel tankers—the figure is the same for 1 January—of which 180 could be made available for this purpose. Around 900 additional drivers are currently being trained to drive commercial tankers.

  Courts Martial
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what changes will be made in courts martial as a result of the incorporation into UK law of the European Convention on Human Rights. [135060]

  Mr. Spellar
  Changes have already been made so that courts martial procedures are compatible with Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which concerns the right to a fair trial. These were included in the Armed Forces Act 1996, which introduced reforms to reinforce the independence of the courts martial system. The changes came into effect on 1 April 1997.

  No further changes to the legislation on the conduct of courts martial are planned as a result of the incorporation into UK law of the European Convention on Human Rights.

  Eurolift Project
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on progress made at EU level on the Eurolift project for the establishment of an EU air transport command. [135661]

  Mr. Hoon
  There is no Eurolift project for the establishment of an EU air transport command. The European Air Group, which comprises seven European nations—Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Spain and UK—is, however, conducting a study into options for improving interoperability and co-ordination
  545W
  of military airlift between member nations. The study is not expected to be completed before the end of this year, so it would be premature to judge the outcome at this stage.

  Fuel Crisis
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence of those troops being trained for duties in the event of another fuel crisis, how many have been trained to assist the police in relation to public order offences. [136067]

  Mr. Spellar
  None.

  RAF Benson
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence by how many(a) civilians and (b) RAF personnel the two Lynx deep-servicing lines at RAF Benson are undermanned; and if he will make a statement. [134299]

  Mr. Spellar
  There are no Lynx deep servicing lines at RAF Benson.

  Army Training Estates Review
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the outcome of the Army Training Estates Review; and if he will make a statement. [134302]

  Mr. Spellar
  There are currently two similarly named reviews being carried out within the Ministry of Defence.

  First, Land Command is conducting an Army Training Estate Site Utility Review. This aims to identify Land Command training areas, camps and ranges which are no longer required in order that they can be closed or sold, thereby saving maintenance costs and where possible generating revenue. The review team will make their recommendations by the end of this calendar year. Secondly, the Army Training and Recruiting Agency is conducting a review into the strategic development of the Agency over the next few years and this may have an impact on its estate. Work is still at a very early stage and no decisions have been taken.

  Russian Plutonium/Chemical Weapons
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the locations where the Russian plutonium stockpiles covered by the UK's programme of help with disposal of such material have been disposed of.[134352]

  Mr. Spellar
  I will write to the hon. Member and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the locations where the Russian chemical weapons covered by the UK's programme of help with disposal of such weapons have been disposed of. [134351]

  Mr. Spellar
  In July, as part of Spending Review 2000, up to £12 million was allocated to the Ministry of Defence for high priority chemical demilitarisation and co-operative biological non proliferation projects in Russia. This funding will be available over a three-year 546W
  period starting in April 2001. A study of possible options for UK assistance is currently under way. No decisions on specific projects have yet been taken.

  Atlantic Star
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make it his policy to recommend the award of the Atlantic Star to Russian convoy veterans for their service in the Arctic Ocean during World War II; and if he will make a statement. [135881]

  Mr. Hill
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Registry of Shipping and Seamen (RSS), part of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency issues all campaign stars in respect of Merchant Seamen. The qualifications for the Atlantic Star require that the 1939–45 Star must first have been earned by six months' service at sea and then must be followed by a further six months' service at sea before 8 May 1945, with at least one voyage in the qualifying area ie across the Atlantic, South Atlantic or service in convoys to North Russia. This award is available to all British seafarers who fulfil the criteria.

  Merchant Shipping Notice M.279, which sets out the criteria for campaign stars for Merchant Seamen, was published in 1946 and is still in use to assess awards. It remains official policy to award the Atlantic Star to Russian convoy veterans who are British seafarers provided they make a request and fulfil the necessary criteria.

  Evidence of service is taken either from the discharge book of the veteran, or, if this is not available, from the discharge summaries and ships log books which are held at RSS Cardiff.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Train Safety
  Mr. Hilary Benn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will review the effectiveness of hammers carried on trains for use in emergencies to break window glass; and if he will make a statement. [134340]

  Mr. Hill
  This and other matters relating to the evacuation of trains in an emergency are under review by the Health and Safety Commission. The Railways (Safety Case) Regulations 2000, which were laid before the House on 2 October following proposals from the Commission, will require train operators to revise their safety cases to include, among other things, details of the train evacuation equipment and arrangements which they have in place or propose. These revised safety cases will have to be submitted to the Health and Safety Executive for formal acceptance.

  The Commission expects shortly to receive a report from a railway industry working group which is considering these issues. The Commission and Executive will take any further action which may be appropriate in the light of the industry's proposals and any relevant recommendations which may arise from Lord Cullen's public inquiry.
  547W
  Mr. Hilary Benn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what arrangements are made to test the effectiveness of safety equipment carried on passenger trains. [134339]

  Mr. Hill
  There are many different types of safety equipment carried on passenger trains. Arrangements for testing the effectiveness of the safety equipment are laid out in the maintenance regime for each train type. The train owner, operator or maintenance contractor is responsible for ensuring that the appropriate arrangements are undertaken.

  Mr. Alasdair Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what discussions he has held with Railtrack on the subject of cracked or faulty railway lines; what assurances he has secured from Railtrack; and if he will make a statement.[135932]

  Mr. Hill
  There are regular meetings between Ministers and Railtrack at which a variety of issues have been discussed, including the issue of broken rails.

  Mr. Alasdair Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what investigations are being undertaken on the safety of the railway track in(a) north-east Scotland and (b) elsewhere in Scotland; and if he will make a statement. [135934]

  Mr. Hill
  HSE's Principal Inspector of Railways in Scotland met with the Senior Railtrack Management on 25 October 2000. Railtrack Scotland has carried out visual examinations on sites with track already identified as needing replacement, and are in the process of establishing a programme for other sites. Railtrack is taking whatever action is necessary to identify all track defects and where they cannot be remedied speedily, the necessary mitigation measures (i.e. speed restrictions, increased inspection, traffic limitations) will be implemented to maintain the safety of passengers. HSE is also meeting with senior management at Railtrack HQ on national initiatives being taken to maintain the infrastructure.

  Mr. Alasdair Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he was first advised by the shadow Strategic Rail Authority of the extent of the problems with broken rails; and if he will make a statement. [135933]

  Mr. Hill
  In its first interim report into the Hatfield derailment on 20 October, the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) informed Ministers that Railtrack were concerned about a specific form of rolling contact fatigue—sometimes referred to as gauge corner cracking—and that as a result had imposed emergency speed restrictions across the railway system. However, Ministers have been aware of the general issue of broken rails for a considerable amount of time, including the concerns raised by the HSE and the Rail Regulator.

  Mr. Alasdair Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many broken rails were discovered on the railway network in Scotland in(a) 1990 and (b) in each year from 1995 to date; and if he will make a statement.[135935]

  Mr. Hill
  The Health and Safety Executive does not hold records on broken rails dating back to 1990. Figures for broken rails based on geographical areas supplied to HSE's Railway Inspectorate by railway operators 548W
  commenced from 1 April 1996. The number of broken rails for Scotland for the period of 1 April 1996 to 31 March 2000 are shown in the following table.

  Broken rails in Scotland 1996–97 to 1999–2000

  Total broken rails in scotland

  Year

  Railtrack

  Glasgow Underground

  1996–97

  57

  2

  1997–98

  49

  0

  1998–99

  88

  0

  1999–2000

  80

  0

  Road Deaths
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many people were killed on the roads in the week beginning Sunday 10 September and in the same week of September 1999. [135094]

  Mr. Hill
  No information is yet available regarding 2000 accident data. The figures for the days September 10–16 for 1998 and 1999 are as shown:

  1998–67

  1999–62

  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many people were killed on the roads in each of the last three years for which figures are available in the area of the Essex Police Authority. [135101]

  Mr. Hill
  The number of people killed on the roads in the area of the Essex Police authority in each of the last three years for which figures are available are as follows:

  1997–89

  1998–76

  1999–106.

  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many people were killed on the road in each of the last three years for which figures are available. [135099]

  Mr. Hill
  The number of people killed on the roads in each of the last three years for which figures are available are as follows:

  1997–3,599

  1998–3,421

  1999–3,423.

  Housing Stock Transfers
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) if he will list(a) the three most senior members of staff employed by registered social landlords that have taken over former local authority housing stock and (b) their previous employers; [134732]

  (2) if he will list (a) the chairmen of registered social landlords that have taken over former local authority housing stock and (b) their current occupation and relevant interests. [134733]
  549W
  Mr. Mullin
  A list of the chairs and two most senior members of staff of registered social landlords (RSLs) which have taken over former local authority housing stock has been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Information on the previous employers of senior staff in these RSLs, the third most senior member of staff, and the current occupation and relevant interests of the chairs of these RSLs is not held centrally.

  Disabled Drivers
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on progress on reviewing the definition of very exceptional cases in the context of the application of the second EC Directive on the driving licence relating to the renewal of licences for drivers suffering from diabetes mellitus and requiring insulin treatment; and what account is being taken of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 in this review. [134572]

  Mr. Hill
  At their meeting on 4 October, the Secretary of State's Honorary Medical Advisory Panel on Driving and Diabetes agreed that the term "exceptional case" should be redefined to mean applicants for Cl entitlement (vehicles of between 3.5 to 7.5 tonnes) with good diabetic control and no significant complications. The panel will meet again on 8 November to finalise the new definition, after which public consultation will begin with a view to having the legislative changes in place by spring 2001.

  There is no question of conflict with the Disability Discrimination Act.

  Railways (Public Investment)
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how much public money has been paid to(a) the railway operating companies and (b) Railtrack in each year since privatisation; and what annual payments are to be made in future years. [135432]

  Mr. Hill
  Since privatisation, Support for Passenger Rail Services (SPRS) has been paid by the Franchising Director to passenger train operating companies (TOCs). Also, certain TOCs receive income from Passenger Transport Executives (PTEs) for rail passenger services in major conurbations. In addition, freight operating companies (FOCs) receive freight grant payments from my Department.

  The table provides details, for each year since the TOCs and FOCs were created, of SPRS and PTE payments to the TOCs, and freight grant payments to the FOCs. The figures for 2000–01 are estimated outturns.

  Cash prices

  £ million

  Payments

  SPRS

  PTE

  Freight grant

  1994–95

  1.783

  346

  —

  1995–96

  1,669

  362

  —

  1996–97

  1,809

  291

  12

  1997–98

  1,429

  375

  21

  1998–99

  1,196

  337

  19

  1999–2000

  1,033

  312

  17

  2000–01

  913

  280

  16

  550W
  Since privatisation, no public money has been paid direct to Railtrack, but the company's profitability is contingent on public money. Some 90 per cent. of Railtrack's income is paid to the company by TOCs and FOCs in access charges, a substantial proportion of which are supported by public money.

  The precise size of annual payments in future years will depend on negotiations which the Franchising Director has not yet completed with TOCs and others. Under existing franchises, total subsidy to TOCs is set to fall from some £1.2 billion this year to less than £900 million by 2002–03. Also, the Franchising Director has approved a number of projects under the Rail Passenger Partnership (RPP) scheme, involving commitments to pay some £12 million to TOCs. He is currently considering 23 other possible RPP projects, with potential to generate payments of an additional £53 million. The Ten-Year Plan for Transport provides for substantial extra Government funding to halt the decline in revenue subsidy and for direct payments of renewals capital grant to Railtrack for both passengers and freight. In addition, the Plan provides for a Rail Modernisation Fund of £7 billion to support enhancements of the rail network.

  Road Haulage
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement about the principal elements in the costs of a typical road haulage business in(a) 1970, (b) 1980, (c) 1990 and (d) the latest date for which figures are available, indicating in each year the percentage of turnover accounted for by those costs. [135408]

  Mr. Hill
  The Government do not routinely collect information on the operating costs of road hauliers.

  Planning Officers
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what action he plans to take with regard to planning officers who take employment with(a) developers and (b) applicants with whom they have dealt. [135663]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The Government have no powers to intervene in these issues. Local authorities are independent employers and the terms and conditions of their staff, including future employment, are determined in their contracts.

  Council Tax Benefit
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to help tenants in social housing whose homes have been designated Band F, G or H and who are thereby ineligible for Council Tax Benefit. [135828]

  Ms Armstrong
  People on low incomes (whether social tenants or otherwise) who occupy dwellings in Bands F, G and H are eligible to claim Council Tax Benefit. Those who received Council Tax Benefit on or before 31 March 1998 and continue to meet the continuity requirements are entitled to have up to 100 per cent. of their council tax liability met through benefit regardless
  551W
  of the valuation band of their home. New claimants after that date who live in dwellings in Bands F, G and H can receive benefit up to the maximum amount payable for Band E dwellings. We have no plans to alter this arrangement, which was introduced to ensure that taxpayers do not fully subsidise the costs of people living in the highest value properties. This is consistent with our policy of not supporting such properties on Income Support where help for mortgage interest in new cases is also restricted. However, we are aware of the concerns that remain with this measure and are continuing to monitor the effects of the restriction.

  Home Energy Efficiency Scheme
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how much funding has been allocated for the Home Energy Efficiency Scheme for 2000–01. [135883]

  Mr. Meacher
  The budget for the Home Energy Efficiency Scheme for 2000–01 is £121,857,000.

  Soil Protection Strategy
  Mrs. Brinton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he plans to publish for public consultation the Soil Protection Strategy recommended by the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution in its 1996 report, 'Sustainable Use of Soil'. [136011]

  Mr. Meacher
  Soon.

  Parish Polls
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will review the trigger level for the holding of parish polls. [135740]

  Ms Armstrong
  [holding answer 31 October 2000]We have no plans to alter the legislative requirements for the holding of parish polls.

  Fitness to Drive
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to review current arrangements for ascertaining the medical fitness of older drivers. [135734]

  Mr. Hill
  [holding answer 31 October 2000]These matters are kept under constant review. The benefits of any changes to medical requirements would be assessed in the context of overall mobility and safety benefits for older people and other road users.

  We have commissioned research from Manchester University into the driving behaviour of older people. The project is due to be completed by the end of November and a report will be published in due course.

  Salisbury District Council
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many staff were employed by Salisbury District Council in(a) 1998, (b) 1999 and (c) on 1 October 2000. [136044]
  552W
  Ms Armstrong
  The information that is available is as follows:

  Salisbury District Council

  Number of employees

  12 June 1998

  9 June 2000

  Full-time employees

  477

  418

  Part-time employees

  91

  73

  Estimated whole-time equivalents

  518

  451

  Sources:

  Joint Staffing Watch (1998), Employers' Organisation (2000)

  Road Traffic Reduction Act 1997
  Angela Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he has received Road Traffic Reduction Act reports from local traffic authorities as required by the Road Traffic Reduction Act 1997. [136774]

  Mr. Hill
  I have received reports under the Road Traffic Reduction Act 1997 from local traffic authorities in England, as required under the Act. Copies of the reports have been laid before the Parliament and placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Parish Councils (Reserves)
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what the recommended level is of reserves required to be held by a parish council; and if he will make a statement. [136179]

  Ms Armstrong
  The Government do not make recommendations on the level of reserves to be held by parish councils.

  The Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy (CIPFA) published non-statutory guidance on standards of financial reporting for parish councils following the laying of the Accounts and Audit Regulations 1996.

  The CIPFA guidance does not make recommendations on levels of reserves either, but does set out reporting requirements and guidance relating to reserves for small (budgeted annual income of less than £5,000), medium-sized (£5,000–£500,000) and large (£500,000 plus) parish councils.

  Ross-on-Wye Council (Finances)
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he has received the return from Ross-on-Wye Town Council on the finances of the council; and if he will make a statement. [136178]

  Ms Armstrong
  Ross-on-Wye Town Council is a Parish Council, rather than a District Council, and as such does not make financial returns to this department.

  Chicklade Bypass
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he will build a bypass for the village of Chicklade on the A303(T) in Wiltshire. [134301]
  553W
  Mr. Hill
  The A303 Chicklade Bottom-Mere Improvement is one of the schemes currently being considered under the London to South West and South Wales Multi-Modal Study. The outcome of the study will inform the Regional Planning Body's consideration of transport infrastructure requirements in preparing a review of the Regional Transport Strategy, currently contained in emerging Regional Planning Guidance for the South West, including the need for improvements to the trunk road network. I expect the study to report towards the end of next year.

  Draft Water Bill
  Mr. Ian Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when the Government plans to publish the draft Water Bill; and if he will make a statement. [136776]

  Mr. Meacher
  I will publish a draft Water Bill for public consultation on Monday 6 November. The draft Bill will have three main elements: first, it will contain provisions to improve the management of water through reforms to the abstraction licensing system and by promoting greater water conservation by water companies; second, it will re-introduce the regulatory reform provisions for water that were removed from the Utilities Bill in March 2000. These clauses have been updated since then, mainly to reflect any relevant amendments made to the equivalent energy provisions now in the Utilities Act 2000. The overall aim is to put the consumer at the heart of the regulatory process and to make regulation more open and accountable; and third, the draft Bill will contain a number of other useful but minor improvements to the regulatory systems for water and reservoir safety.

  The draft Bill includes provisions to increase the maximum penalty for abstraction and impounding offences and for supplying water unfit for human consumption from £5,000 to £20,000. This reflects the importance the Government attaches to ensuring appropriate fines for water offences. Unlimited fines are available in the crown courts.

  The draft Bill will also give new powers to the regulators to fine water companies up to 10 per cent. of their turnover for breaches of their conditions of appointment, or for failure to achieve prescribed standards of performance.

  We are also consulting on measures to ensure that customers have easy access to reliable comparative information on water company performance. We are working with the water industry with the aim of developing a pilot scheme. We are also consulting when we publish the draft water bill on introducing any necessary legislation to require companies to provide comparative performance information to customers.

  Copies of the draft Bill and covering consultation paper, and an accompanying publication setting out the Government's Regulatory Impact Assessment, Environmental Impact Assessment and a Policy Appraisal for Equal Treatment will be laid before the House at 11am on Monday 6 November.

CABINET OFFICE

  Risk Management Frameworks
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office how many Departments produced risk management frameworks relating to their Statement of Internal Control by September; and if she will place copies in the Library. [135490]

  Mr. Stringer
  Departments and public bodies will be required to produce Statements of Internal Control from the financial years 2001–02 onwards. The first Statements will be published in 2002. As a separate exercise, Departments and Agencies that are responsible for managing significant risks faced by the public are drawing up and publishing the framework and procedures they use for reaching decisions on the risks for which they are responsible. Copies of these will be placed in the Library. As of 31 October, risk frameworks had been published by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, the Ministry of Defence, the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the Environment Agency, the Department for Education and Employment, the Food Standards Agency, the Department of Health, the Health and Safety Executive, the Inland Revenue and the Office for National Statistics.

  Pharmacy Controls
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what recent studies her Department has undertaken on the economic and financial effects of pharmacy(a) licence regulation and (b) planning permission. [134505]

  Mr. Stringer
  The Performance and Innovation Unit of the Cabinet Office published in December 1999 a project on rural economies, which discussed the implications of planning policy for rural economies. Additionally, the independent Better Regulation Task Force, for which I am sponsor Minister, published in June 2000 a case study of increasing regulation in the hotel and restaurant industry. Among other things, it looked at whether there were any barriers in the planning system to the productivity of this sector.

  Performance and Innovation Unit
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office how many people are employed in the Performance and Innovation Unit. [135387]

  Mr. Stringer
  As of 31 October 2000, there are 31 people employed in the Performance and Innovation Unit.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  House Purchases
  Mr. Hilary Benn
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when he expects to be able to publish the final research report on the trials of the new system for home buying and selling. [135830]
  555W
  Mr. Lock
  We are planning to announce the results of the seller's information pack pilot at a conference in Bristol on 24 November. A short report and a summary of the main findings and conclusions will be published on that date. A full research report is expected to be published in December.

  Magistrates Courts Service
  Mr. Hope
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when he will publish the Annual Report of the Chief Inspector of the magistrates courts service: and if he will make a statement. [136775]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Lord Chancellor has today placed copies of the Chief Inspector's Annual Report in the Libraries of both Houses.

  The Chief Inspector reports a noticeable improvement in overall proficiency across the service. Magistrates courts committees have faced up to hard decisions and shown determination in executing them. While further improvements are needed, such as in the management of performance through the monitoring of suitable indicators, magistrates courts committees are demonstrating an increasing willingness to think strategically.

  Although most MCCs continued to show significant weaknesses in managing performance in case administration, all magistrates courts committees inspected achieved average or better than average case completion times. There were also some encouraging signs of recent improvement. The Chief Inspector also noted that there had been good inter-agency work on the planning and implementation of the new Narey procedures and Youth Court Joint Performance Improvement Plans.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  European Charter of Fundamental Rights
  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on developments in the drafting of the European Charter of Fundamental Rights. [135376]

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs for what reason a draft Charter of Fundamental Rights is being negotiated by EU member states. [135574]

  Mr. Vaz
  In June 1999, the Conclusions of the Cologne European Council called for a Charter of Fundamental Rights to be drawn up to make those rights more visible. It was agreed that the Charter would be drafted by a body called the Convention, consisting of 15 member states representatives, 16 MEPs, 30 national parliamentarians and one Commissioner.

  The Convention met regularly from December 1999 to October 2000. It circulated a final draft on 2 October. This was discussed by Heads of Government at the Biarritz Informal Council on 13–14 October. They agreed that the Charter should be proclaimed as a political declaration at the Nice European Council in December. Copies of the Charter text have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
  556W
  The Government strongly supports the Charter. People need to know their rights. And the EU Institutions need to respect them. The Charter will help on both counts. It sets out fundamental rights and principles that the EU Institutions should respect when going about their daily business, and it promotes the visibility and accessibility of those rights.

  The Charter is not legally binding. It is addressed to the EU Institutions, and to member states only when they are implementing Union law (Article 51(1)). It does not establish any new power or task for the Community or the Union or modify powers and tasks defined by the Treaties (Article 51(2)). It does not create any new powers for the European Court of Justice.

  Individual Charter articles should be read in the context of the declaration as a whole, including the horizontal provisions. The meaning and scope of articles derived from the European Convention on Human Rights shall be the same as that in the corresponding ECHR articles (Article 52(3)). Charter articles based on EC/EU Treaty rights shall be exercised under the conditions and within the limits defined by those Treaties (Article 52(2)). Other articles make clear that the rights they concern are given effect only to the extent that they have effect in national laws and practices.

  The Government believe the Charter will be good for Britain and good for Europe. Its successful negotiation is a vindication of our policy of positive engagement with our European partners.

  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs who are the members of the Praesidium referred to in Convent 45, Draft Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union; and what are its powers. [135523]

  Mr. Vaz
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave today, columns 555–56W, to the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) and to the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow)

  The Praesidium was chaired by Roman Herzog, the Chairman of the Convention. The European Commission was represented by Antonio Vitorino, Commissioner for Justice and Home Affairs.

  The three Vice-Chairs were Inigo Mendes de Vigo (European Parliament), Gunnar Jansson (national parliamentarians) and Paavo Nikula followed by Bacelar de Vasconcelos and Guy Braibant (Finnish, Portuguese and French Presidencies).

  EU Matters
  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) if he will make a statement on his policy in respect of the number of European commissioners per member state; [135092]

  (2) if he will make a statement on his policy towards changes in majority voting in the EU. [135089]

  Mr. Vaz
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the White Paper laid before the House on 15 February 2000,Official Report, columns 769–83, which sets out the Government's position.

  Enhanced Co-operation
  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on reinforced co-operation in the EU. [135382]

  Mr. Vaz
  As the Prime Minister made clear in his speech in Warsaw on 6 October, this Government support the principle of enhanced co-operation in an enlarged Union. But this must be subject to important safeguards. Enhanced co-operation must remain open to all at any stage; it must not undermine the single market or other common policies and it must not lead to a hard core in which some member states create shared policies and institutions from which others are in practice excluded.

  EU Legal Personality
  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on proposals from the European Parliament relating to a legal personality for the European Union. [135385]

  Mr. Vaz
  The issue of EU legal personality has been touched on in discussions at the Intergovernmental Conference. However a majority of member states, including the United Kingdom, were not in favour of this being added to the IGC agenda.

  European Federation
  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his policy on a European Federation with a constitution. [135383]

  Mr. Vaz
  The Government have made clear their opposition to a federal superstate. We want a United Europe of States, not a United States of Europe. I refer the hon. Gentleman to the Prime Minister's speech in Warsaw on 6 October. I have sent him a copy of this speech today.

  Euro
  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the result of the Danish referendum on the euro. [135378]

  Mr. Vaz
  As the Prime Minister has said, this decision is a matter for the Danish people and does not change the Government's position. We are in favour, in principle, of joining a successful single currency but in practice the five economic tests have to be met. Should Government and Parliament recommend joining, the final decision should be for the British people in a referendum.

  European Common Foreign and Security Policy/NATO
  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the relationship between European common Foreign and Security Policy and NATO. [135384]

  Mr. Vaz
  NATO is the cornerstone of the UK's defence. NATO plays a major role in crisis management, as in Bosnia and Kosovo. In pursuit of its common Foreign and Security Policy, the European Union is developing its capacity to undertake military crisis 558W
  management operations where the alliance as a whole is not engaged. More capable European nations will strengthen NATO as well as the European Union.

  For European Defence to be effective, EU activity needs to be underpinned by arrangements for consultation, co-operation and transparency with NATO and for EU access to NATO assets. Negotiations between the EU and NATO to secure these arrangements are under way.

  EU Economic and Social Policies
  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on proposals by the European Parliament relating to the European Union's powers in relation to economic, social and employment policies. [135090]

  Mr. Vaz
  In its resolution of March 2000, the European Parliament proposed a number of changes to the European Union's powers in relation to economic, social and employment policies, for discussion at the intergovernmental conference. Not all aspects of the European Parliament's proposals have been taken up by the Conference. As far as the proposals relate to qualified majority voting, the Government made their policy clear in their White Paper "IGC: Reform for Enlargement" of February 2000.

  Southern Cameroons National Council
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what his policy is towards the Southern Cameroons National Council; and if he will make a statement. [135261]

  Mr. Hain
  As an Anglophone organisation committed to secession from Cameroon, parts of the SCNC have used armed violence in pursuit of their aims. We have pressed the Cameroon authorities to ensure that the rights of all, whether Anglophone or Francophone, be respected. We urge all groups in Cameroon to work together to find peaceful and lawful solutions to their problems. We deplore all violent activity.

  EU Institutional Changes
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on EU institutional changes affecting(a) the Commission, (b) the Parliament, (c) the Court of Justice and (d) the Court of Auditors. [135397]

  Mr. Vaz
  I refer my hon. Friend to the White Paper laid before the House on 15 February 2000,Official Report, columns 769–83, which clearly sets out the Government's position toward the institutional changes currently being discussed at the intergovernmental conference.

  EU Enlargement
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the progress being made in EU enlargement negotiations with(a) Bulgaria, (b) Latvia, (c) Lithuania, (d) Malta, (e) Romania and (f) Slovakia. [135390]

  Mr. Vaz
  Accession negotiations with the six countries listed were launched on 15 February 2000. For the purpose of negotiations, the "acquis communautaire" (ie the body of
  559W
  law and practice to which all member states subscribe) of the European Union is divided into 31 "chapters". By 24 October, the countries concerned had "opened" (ie started negotiations on) between eight and 13 chapters each. Malta had "provisionally closed" (ie no further negotiations are required at this stage) 10 chapters; Slovakia nine; Latvia and Lithuania seven each, Romania and Bulgaria six each. These countries are expected provisionally to close a number of further chapters at the Deputies Conferences scheduled for 16 November and at the Ministerial Conferences on 21 November.

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the state of the EU enlargement negotiations in respect of(a) Cyprus, (b) Czech Republic, (c) Estonia, (d) Hungary, (e) Poland and (f) Slovenia. [135391]

  Mr. Vaz
  Accession negotiations with the six countries listed were launched in March 1998. For the purpose of negotiations, the "acquis communautaire" (ie the body of law and practice to which all member states subscribe) of the European Union is divided into 31 "chapters". By 5 October, the countries concerned had "opened" (ie started negotiations on) 29 (out of 31) chapters. Cyprus had "provisionally closed" (ie no further negotiations are required at this stage) 16 chapters, Estonia 14, Hungary and the Czech Republic 13 each, Slovenia 12 and Poland 11. These countries are expected provisionally to close a number of further chapters at the Deputies Conferences scheduled for 14 November and at the Ministerial Conferences on 5 December.

  New Agenda Coalition
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his policy on the New Agenda Coalition at the United Nations General Assembly and their efforts to get agreement on multilateral nuclear disarmament.[135399]

  Mr. Vaz
  The Government were pleased to have reached agreement with the New Agenda Coalition, and with the other states party to the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT), on a forward-looking agenda for nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament at the 2000 NPT Review Conference in May.

  The Government wish to see that agenda reinforced at this year's United Nations General Assembly. To that end, we are currently engaged in discussions with the Coalition in New York on the text of their draft resolution.

  Landmine Clearance Programme
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made with the landmine clearance programme in Bosnia-Herzegovina; and when he expects the operation to be completed. [135216]

  Mr. Vaz
  It is difficult to obtain precise figures for demining progress to date in Bosnia and Herzegovina. But NATO-led Stabilisation Force (SFOR) estimates indicate that, up to 1999, 50,000 devices (mines and unexploded ordnance) had been cleared; official figures from the local Mine Action Centres suggest that over 12,600 devices have so far been cleared in 1999 and 2000. The overall system of demining in Bosnia and Herzegovina is 560W
  currently under review, in an effort to accelerate the process; but it is not possible to give an estimated end-date for the operation.

  Colombian Anti-narcotics Police
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what(a) financial support and (b) logistical, personnel or training support the Government have provided to the Colombian Anti-Narcotics Police in the last 10 years. [135114]

  Mr. Battle
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office have not provided financial support to the Colombian Anti-Narcotics Police (ANP).

  Some training has been provided to the ANP in the past ten years. This has included military training, seaport profiling and vehicle search techniques. We have also provided equipment to the ANP in support of this training, which has included rummage kits and communications equipment.

  Plan Colombia
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he expects the UK and its European counterparts to make a final decision on the allocation of funds for Plan Colombia. [135110]

  Mr. Battle
  The European Commission announced at the second consultative group meeting on support for the peace process in Colombia, held in Bogota on 24 October, that the EU would contribute 105 million euro to Colombia over the period 2000–06. In addition, the Commission pledged to continue to support humanitarian projects in Colombia, current expenditure of which is around 10 million euro per annum.

  The EU Presidency made clear at the meeting that the European package is in support of the peace process; defence of human rights and international humanitarian law; help for victims of violence; protection of biodiversity and the environment, and support for regional co-operation.

  Bolivia
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the recent violence in the Chapare region of Bolivia. [135111]

  Mr. Battle
  The political situation in Bolivia has stabilised following a period of social unrest and violent tension in late September and early October. Protests in the Chapare centred on the Bolivian Government's plans to eradicate illegal coca crops, in line with a five year counter-drug action plan.

  An agreement was reached with coca growers on 14 October and the situation in the Chapare has stabilised, although there have been sporadic outbreaks of violence since then. The agreement provides for better implementation and control of alternative development projects and the establishment of a human rights commission to investigate violence and deaths in the Chapare since 1998. The Bolivian Government has also shelved plans to build three military barracks in the Chapare.

  EU Energy Policy
  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on proposals by the European Parliament relating to the European Union's energy policy. [135088]

  Mrs. Liddell
  I have been asked to reply.

  I am not aware of any specific proposals in this area.

  Israel
  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what investigations are being undertaken to ensure that arms exports to Israel are not being used for internal repression or external aggression. [135555]

  Mr. Hain
  We have no evidence to suggest that equipment licensed for export by this Government has been used by Israeli Forces against civilians in the Occupied Territories during the recent events. We are very concerned about the recent violence in the Occupied Territories and in Israel and continue to monitor the situation closely.

  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proposals for action Her Majesty's Government are evaluating in its role as one of the High Contracting Parties to the Geneva Convention to monitor Israeli violations of the IVth Geneva Convention in the Occupied Territories. [135473]

  Mr. Hain
  We and our EU partners monitor the situation in Israel and the Occupied Territories closely through our diplomatic missions. We are also in close contact with the International Committee of the Red Cross and relevant non-governmental organisations.

  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action his Department is taking to ensure that no British equipment is being used by Israeli forces in(a) helicopter attacks and (b) other actions against civilians in the Occupied Territories of the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem. [135472]

  Mr. Hain
  We have no evidence that equipment licensed for export by this Government has been used by Israeli forces against civilians in the Occupied Territories during the recent violence. We would be concerned if such evidence came to light and continue to monitor the situation closely.

  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations Her Majesty's Government have made to the Israeli Government about the re-establishment at Mitzpe Hagit in the West Bank of an illegal settlement. [135471]

  Mr. Hain
  The Government's position remains that all settlements are illegal under international law and undermine the peace process. This applies to Mitzpe Hagit, as to other settlements. The Israeli Government is well aware of our position.

  Council of the European Union
  Mr. Hilary Benn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list(a) the forthcoming business in the Council of the European
  562W
  Union for November and (b) the major European Union events for the period between 30 November and April 2001. [136810]

  Mr. Vaz
  To date we have received the detailed agendas for the following Council meetings in November:

  7 November—Brussels—ECOFIN Council

  Adoption of the agenda

  Approval of the list of "A" items

  Follow-up to the Lisbon European Council meeting

  Adoption of the joint Council-Commission report assessing European financial instruments for risk capital.

  Discussion of the Commission proposal for implementation of the action plan for risk capital and monitoring indicators.

  Adoption of the report on structural performance indicators.

  Discussion of the EPC progress report on the financial and microeconomic impact of aging.

  Preparation for the Nice European Council meeting (poss.) Exchange-rate strategies of countries applying for membership.

  Other business

  7 November—Brussels—Environment

  Adoption of the agenda

  Approval of the list of "A" items(*)

  Community strategy on climate change strategy debate prior to COP6/preparation for COP6

  Draft Council conclusions

  Commission progress report on the European climate change programme

  Other business(*) Including in particular the Council conclusions on the negotiations for a legally binding international instrument to apply international measures to certain persistent organic pollutants (POPs).

  9 November—Brussels—Education/Youth

  Adoption of the agenda

  (poss.) Approval of the list of "A" items

  (a) Mobility

  Proposal for a Recommendation of the European Parliament and of the Council on mobility within the Community for students, persons undergoing training, volunteers, teachers and trainers.

  Political agreement

  5600/00 EDUC 8 SOC 28 JEUN 3 CODEC 59

  12020/00 CODEC 736 EDUC 133 SOC 318 JEUN 53

  (b) Mobility Action Plan

  Adoption of a Resolution

  Preliminary draft report on future objectives of education systems

  Presentation by the Commission and discussion

  Follow-up to the Leiden seminar on open co-ordination and benchmarking as applied to European education systems

  Information from the Presidency and the Commission

  Contribution to the Luxembourg process

  Adoption of a contribution from the Council (Education) to the Council (Employment and Social Policy)

  Social agenda

  Adoption of a contribution of the Council (Education) to the Council (Employment and Social Policy)

  Follow-up to the meeting of the EU-Latin American Ministers for Higher Education in Paris on 3 November 2000

  Information from the Presidency

  Memorandum on life-long learning

  Presentation by the Commission

  Commission information points

  563W

  (a) Progress reached in the implementation of the European Year of Languages 2001

  (b) Renewal of the United States-Canada-EU co-operation agreements in the field of education and training

  (c) Celebration of the 20th anniversary of the Eurydice information network and of the 25th anniversary of the European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training (CEDEFOP)

  (d) Information from the Presidency on the outcome of the Blois seminar entitled "Learn the history of Europe" (13–15 October 2000)

  Young people and Europe: what follow-up measures should be taken following consultations with young people in Europe? (public debate)

  Implementation of the YOUTH programme

  Information from the Commission and exchange of views

  Social inclusion of young people: Resolution of the Council and of the Representatives of the Governments of the member states meeting within the Council

  Adoption

  Protection of the young involved in sport—Information from the Commission and exchange of views

  Measures to combat racism in the young

  Contribution by the German delegation

  Other business

  16 November—Brussels—Research Council

  European Space research

  Commission communication on the realisation of the European space research programme

  Lisbon follow up. Work in progress on:

  Benchmarking (indicators), infrastructures and research, science and society, plan of action e-europe

  Exchange of views

  Option of council resolution

  Commission paper on European space strategy

  Presentation by the Commission

  Exchange of views

  Adoption of council resolution

  Negotiating mandate relating to legal entity of the ITER

  For Approval (false B points)

  Other Business

  Information from the Commission on The Innovation of a knowledge based economy'

  Presidency information on the academy of sciences-Alpha Galileo report

  In addition, there will be the following Council meetings:

  3—Brussels—Social Affairs Council

  No agenda yet available

  10—Brussels—Development Council

  No agenda yet available

  15–16—Brussels—Euro-Med Ministerial

  No agenda yet available

  17—Brussels—Fisheries Council

  No agenda yet available

  20–21—Brussels—General Affairs Council

  No agenda yet available

  20–21—Brussels—Agriculture Council

  No agenda yet available

  23—Brussels—Culture/Audio-visual Council

  No agenda yet available

  564W

  23–24—Brussels—Budget Council

  No agenda yet available

  27–28—Brussels—ECOFIN—Council

  No agenda yet available

  27–28—Brussels—Labour and Social Affairs Council

  No agenda yet available

  30—Brussels—Justice and Home Affairs Council

  No agenda yet available

  30—Brussels—Internal Market/Consumer/Tourism Council

  No agenda yet available

  The following are the principle events in the EU between 30 November and April 2001 (certain relevant events are also included: the list is based on the information available at the date of issue:

  Date

  Venue

  Event

  December

  1

  Brussels

  Justice and Home Affairs Council

  3

  Brussels

  IGC Ministerial Conclave

  4–5

  Brussels

  General Affairs Council

  4

  Brussels

  Telecommunications Council

  5

  Brussels

  Energy and Industry Council

  7–9

  Nice

  European Council

  11

  Brussels

  Health Council

  11–15

  Strasbourg

  EP Plenary

  14–15

  Brussels

  Fisheries Council

  18–19

  Brussels

  Environment Council

  18

  Brussels

  ECOFIN Council

  18

  Washington

  EU/United States Summit

  19–20

  Brussels

  Agriculture Council

  19

  Ottawa

  EU/Canada Summit

  20–21

  Brussels

  Transport Council

  22

  Brussels

  Telecommunications Council

  January

  12

  Brussels

  Fisheries Council (possible)

  19

  Brussels

  ECOFIN Council

  22–23

  Brussels

  General Affairs Council

  29

  Brussels

  Budget Council (possible)

  February

  8–9

  Brussels

  JHA Information Council

  12

  Brussels

  ECOFIN Council

  12

  Brussels

  Education/Youth Council (possible)

  12

  Brussels

  Research Council

  15–17

  Brussels

  Informal Employment/Telecommunications Council

  19–20

  Brussels

  Agriculture Council

  26–27

  Brussels

  General Affairs Council

  March

  6

  Brussels

  Employment and Social Affairs Council

  8

  Brussels

  Environment Council

  12

  Brussels

  ECOFIN Council

  12

  Brussels

  Internal Market/Consumer Council

  15

  Brussels

  Justice and Home Affairs Council

  16

  Brussels

  Justice and Home Affairs Council

  19

  Brussels

  Agriculture Council

  19

  Brussels

  General Affairs Council

  20

  Brussels

  General Affairs Council

  20–21

  Brussels

  Fisheries Council (possible)

  23–24

  Stockholm

  European Council

  31–1

  Brussels

  Meeting of Environment Ministers

  April

  5–6

  Brussels

  Transport/Telecommunications Council

  8–10

  Brussels

  General Affairs Council

  8–10

  Brussels

  Agriculture Council (Informal)

  24–25

  Brussels

  Agriculture Council

  International Criminal Court
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the Government will ratify the statute creating the International Criminal Court; and if he will make a statement. [135530]

  Mr. Hain
  The UK will ratify the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court as soon as the necessary legislation is in place. The International Criminal Court Bill was published in draft on 25 August for consultation and will be introduced as soon as the Parliamentary timetable allows.

  War Memorials
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list by UK diplomatic mission the sums disbursed on(a) British and (b) Commonwealth war memorials in (i) 1998 and (ii) 1999. [134303]

  Mr. Hain
  No funds were disbursed by UK diplomatic missions on British and Commonwealth war memorials during 1998 and 1999.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Commonwealth Education Ministers (Conference)
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what(a) ministerial and (b) official representation is planned at the 14 Conference of Commonwealth Education Ministers to be held at Halifax, Nova Scotia for 27 to 30 November. [134425]

  Mr. Wicks
  [holding answer 26 October 2000]The delegation is currently being finalised. It will include myself and Education Ministers from four overseas territories. The devolved Administrations will make their own decisions on possible representation. The Department for International Development also hopes to be represented at ministerial level. The Ministers will be accompanied by officials from the relevant Departments; by Sir Tim Lankester, Deputy Chair of the British Council; and by Dr. Geoffrey Caston, Chairman of the Commonwealth Scholarship Commission in the United Kingdom. A number of other UK bodies and Commonwealth bodies based in the UK will also be attending, either as observers to the ministerial conference or as delegates to the parallel symposium and trade fair.

  Pre-school Playgroups
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to provide funding for pre-school playgroup places for three-year-olds in Buckinghamshire. [134581]

  Ms Hodge
  Details of the funding we will be making available to Buckinghamshire local education authority to fund places in 2001–02 will be announced shortly. Figures are not available for the number of places specifically funded in pre-school playgroups.

  From April 2000, Buckinghamshire local education authority were allocated £144,000 to create a total of 124 new, free, part-time early education places in
  566W
  2000–01 for three-year-olds in all settings. This was increased in September 2000 by £193,000 to fund a further 250 places.

  The allocation of places at a local level is the responsibility of the Buckinghamshire early years development and child care partnership. At a national level, approximately 80 per cent. of the new places made available for three-year-olds are in the private, voluntary and independent sectors.

  Since May 1997, we have increased the number of early education places for three and four-year-olds nationally by 120,000. Already, all four-year-olds in Buckinghamshire have access to an early education place. By September 2004, all three-year-olds will also have that.

  Mrs. Marjorie Evans
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many letters he has received in support of Mrs. Marjorie Evans. [134708]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  My Department has received 85 letters in support of Marjorie Evans.

  Homophobic Bullying
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what evidence his Department has obtained of homophobic bullying resulting from the retention of section 28. [134717]

  Jacqui Smith
  Section 28 does not apply to schools, only to the activities of local education authorities.

  The 1998 report "Playing it Safe", commissioned by Stonewall and the Terence Higgins Trust, and produced by the University of London Institute of Education, for the first time detailed the extent of homophobic bullying in schools.

  University of Buckingham
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment he has made of the work of the University of Buckingham. [134796]

  Mr. Wicks
  The Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (QAA) carries out reviews of the effectiveness of institutional arrangements for the management of the quality and standards of academic provision in all higher education institutions that receive public funding from the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) and therefore subscribe to the Agency. The University of Buckingham is an independent university which does not receive any public funding from the HEFCE. There are, therefore, no requirements for any assessments of the work of the University of Buckingham to be undertaken by the QAA. However, the University of Buckingham is a voluntary subscriber to the QAA for academic quality audit.

  An academic quality audit of the University of Buckingham was carried out by the former Higher Education Quality Council in the 1992–93 academic year, with the report being published in March 1993. The audit scheduled by the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (QAA) for the autumn term 2000 has had to be

  567W
  postponed. The next academic quality audit of the University of Buckingham is not now expected to take place until 2002.

  Stakeholder Pension
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to offer teachers a stakeholder pension. [134372]

  Mr. Wicks
  All teachers have access to the good quality range of benefits provided by the teachers pension scheme. Employers will not, therefore, need to offer teachers a stakeholder pension. All employers should, however, be considering whether they need to offer access to a stakeholder scheme to any of their staff to ensure that no employee is denied the opportunity to make adequate pension provision.

  British Bee Keepers Association
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will offer financial support to those studying for the British Bee Keepers Association's basic exam as a vocational qualification. [135689]

  Mr. Wicks
  [holding answer 30 October 2000]Vocational qualifications eligible for funding by the Further Education Funding Council are approved by the Secretary of State on the basis of advice received from the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority. Bodies seeking recognition of their awards for such purposes should make application to the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority, 83 Piccadilly, London W1J 8QA.

  School Rolls
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many middle schools in England have fewer than 100 pupils on roll. [134300]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  Figures from the January 2000 schools census show that there were no middle schools, primary deemed or secondary deemed with less than 100 pupils. Information on middle schools by size has recently been published in the statistical volume "Statistics of Education Schools in England 2000". This is available from the Library or alternatively can be accessed on the Department's statistical website www.dfee.gov.uk/statistics.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Winter Fuel Payments
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much it has cost so far to administer the backdated winter fuel payments scheme, including the cost of the telephone helpline; and what the estimate is for the final cost of the scheme. [134560]

  Angela Eagle
  The administration of winter fuel payments is a matter for Alexis Cleveland, the Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency. She will write to the hon. Member.
  568W
  Letter from Alexis Cleveland to Mr. David Willetts, dated 1 November 2000:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking how much it has cost so far to administer the backdated winter fuel payment scheme, including the cost of the telephone helpline; and what the latest estimate is for the final cost of the scheme.
  I can confirm that the cost so far in administering the winter fuel payment scheme is £10 million, which includes the cost of the telephone helpline. The estimated final cost of administering the scheme is in the order of £22.5 million.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many households in the Lewes constituency benefit from(a) the winter heating allowance, (b) the Christmas bonus to the basic state pension and (c) the free TV licence for those aged 75 years or over for the last year for which figures are available; and what was the combined value of these to older people in the constituency. [135327]

  Mr. Rooker
  The administration of Social Security is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency, Alexis Cleveland. She will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Alexis Cleveland to Mr. Norman Baker, dated 1 November 2000:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking how many households in the Lewes constituency benefit from (a) the winter fuel heating allowance (b) the Christmas bonus added to the basic state pension and (c) the free TV licence for those aged 75 years or over for the last year for which figures are available. Additionally to advise what was the combined value of these to older people in the constituency.
  The information is not available in the format requested. I can advise you that in the last year recorded Winter Fuel payments were paid to 21,000 pensioners in the Lewes constituency in total. Of these 11,500 received a payment of £50 and 9,500 received £100.
  In addition Christmas bonuses of £10 were issued to 21,000 pensioners.
  The free TV licence scheme does not come into effect until 1 November 2000. It is known that there are 10,000 persons over the age of 75 in the Lewes constituency but as the makeup of the households involved is not known I am unable to advise how many would qualify for a free licence.
  Therefore, it is not possible to say what the combined value of these would be for each individual pensioner in your constituency as conditions of entitlement are governed by the pensioner's individual circumstances.
  However I am able to advise you that from these three payments combined the maximum amount available to a pensioner over the age of 75 years who resided on his/her own would be a combination of Winter Fuel payment (£150), Christmas bonus (£10) and free colour TV licence (£104) totalling £264.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Benefit Fraud Inspectorate
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he will publish the inspection report of the Benefit Fraud Inspectorate in respect of the City of Edinburgh Council. [136915]
  569W
  Mr. Rooker
  The Benefit Fraud Inspectorate report was published today in respect of the City of Edinburgh Council and copies of the report have been placed in the Library.

  The report provides recommendations aimed at helping the council address weaknesses and to improve the administration of Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit, as well as their counter fraud activities.

  The BFI reports that the council needs to do much more to improve benefits administration and its counter fraud efforts. Inspectors found the council had no strategic approach to combating fraud and error and there were serious weaknesses in internal security.

  The report notes concerns about the standards of verification being applied to claims and the BFI found there was potential for better use to be made of management information.

  Inspectors found that the approach of the Counter Fraud Unit had been mainly reactive and the poor quality of casework had brought about premature closure of investigations.

  Some of the recommendations made after the trial inspection in 1997 had been implemented, including a physical merger of Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit administration. The report also notes a general improvement in the interface arrangements with the Benefits Agency.

  I am now considering the report on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I will be asking the council for their proposals in response to the findings and recommendations of the BFI.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he will publish the inspection report of the Benefit Fraud Inspectorate in respect of the London Borough of Harrow. [136916]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Benefit Fraud Inspectorate report in respect of the London Borough of Harrow was published on 12 September 2000, during the parliamentary recess. Copies of the report have been placed in the Library.

  The report provides recommendations aimed at helping the council address weaknesses and to improve the administration of Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit, as well as their respective counter fraud activities.

  The BFI report notes the council's involvement in developing and piloting initiatives. This is demonstrated by their participation in an innovative Private Finance Initiative project to finance a document imaging and retrieval scheme. Inspectors commended the council's interest in providing front line customer service and introducing modern IT.

  BFI found serious weaknesses and deficiencies and considered the council needed to put considerable resources into a number of areas. Inspectors considered more resources were required to clear backlogs of work, implement internal and external audit recommendations, ensure all required referrals were made to the Rent Officer and to improve liaison with housing associations and other landlords.
  570W
  The BFI identified a need to enhance training provision, operational processes and written procedural guidance for benefit assessors and fraud investigators. Inspectors say these measures would ensure consistent compliance with the Verification Framework, high quality fraud investigations and compliance with legislative requirements.

  The report also makes recommendations for the London Borough of Harrow to implement corporate anti-fraud policies and strategies to create a culture in which fraud is not tolerated. Also that management checks should be re-introduced to ensure that benefit payments are made correctly to the right person.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is now considering the report and has asked the council for their proposals in response to the findings and recommendations of the BFI.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he will publish the inspection report of the Benefit Fraud Inspectorate in respect of the London Borough of Tower Hamlets. [136917]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Benefit Fraud Inspectorate report was published today in respect of the London Borough of Tower Hamlets Council and copies of the report have been placed in the Library.

  BFI first reported on the administration of Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit in the London Borough of Tower Hamlets in July 1999. This second report records the current position and measures the progress made by the council since the first inspection. The report provides recommendations aimed at helping the council address weaknesses and to further improve their benefit administration and counter fraud activities.

  Inspectors report that Tower Hamlets has responded positively to recommendations made in the first report. In particular the council was found to be monitoring performance in benefit administration more rigorously and ensuring verification work met a consistently high standard. Inspectors concluded that the council was in a strong position to implement the Verification Framework should it choose to do so.

  The report notes the way benefit staff and those dealing with homeless people work together to ensure only eligible claimants receive benefit. Dealing with homeless people can be difficult and inspectors commended the council for its efforts.

  The BFI found the council is active in investigating fraud and levying sanctions on fraudsters. Inspectors considered there was potential for further progress through the co-ordination of counter fraud activity against claimants who fail to declare income or change of address.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is now considering the report and will be asking the council for their proposals in response to the findings and recommendations of the BFI.

  Mr. Field:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security which local authorities have been directed to improve their administration of Housing Benefit following a second inspection by the Benefit Fraud Inspectorate; and if he will make a statement. [135260]
  571W
  Angela Eagle
  Directions have not, as yet, been issued following a second inspection by the Benefit Fraud Inspectorate of a local authority's Housing Benefit administration. We have, however, given directions in August 2000 to Northampton Borough Council as a result of the Inspectorate's first inspection of that authority.

  To date, the Inspectorate has completed second inspections of the London Boroughs of Croydon and Tower Hamlets and Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council, all of which had previously been inspected under the powers in section 139A of the Social Security Administration Act 1992. We have previously published the report of the Croydon inspection and are currently studying Croydon council's response to the report. The report on Tower Hamlets will be published this week and the authority will be invited to respond. The report on Sandwell has not yet been published.

  Additionally, the Inspectorate has completed inspections of the London Borough of Camden, the City of Edinburgh Council and Newcastle upon Tyne City Council, all of which had previously been the subject of trial inspections which did not take place under the statutory powers.

  In the case of Camden we decided that it was not necessary to issue directions. The Inspectorate found that the council had built on the already good standards that were evident during its first inspection. The council has many good practices in place and, in keeping with its Beacon Council status, is readily sharing its knowledge with other authorities.

  The report on Edinburgh will be published today and the authority will be invited to respond. The report on Newcastle upon Tyne has not yet been published.

  Application Forms
  Mr. Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to simplify the application forms for state benefits; and if he will make a statement. [135529]

  The Distribution of pensioners' incomes below and above the minimum income guarantee (MIG)

  Income for MIG calculation

  Savings

  Below MIG

  £0–10

  £10–20

  £20–30

  £30–40

  Total

  £0

  800

  200

  100

  100

  600

  1,900

  £0–£3,000

  500

  200

  100

  100

  1,000

  1,800

  £3,000–£8,000

  200

  100

  100

  100

  700

  1,100

  £8,000–£12,000

  —

  —

  —

  —

  400

  500

  £12,000–£20,000

  —

  —

  —

  —

  600

  700

  £20,000+

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1,900

  1,900

  Total

  1,500

  500

  400

  300

  5,200

  7,900

  Notes:

  1. Figures have been rounded to the nearest 100,000 cases. No figure is shown where the caseload is less than 50,000.

  2. The figures have been calculated using the Policy Simulation Model for Income Related Benefits. This models the benefits system in 2001–02 and is based on data and the Family Resources Survey (FRS) for 1997–98, uprated to 2001 prices.

  3. Figures exclude Residential Care or Nursing Home cases.

  4. These figures are not calibrated to administrative records of capital levels and as with all survey data may be subject to survey errors.

  5. Figures do not include entitled non-recipients of the MIG.

  6. Income is defined according to the amount used for the calculation of a benefit award and therefore may differ from actual pensioner income.
  572W
  Mr. Rooker
  All our forms and other products are constantly under review. We frequently adopt suggestions from all areas, including from the public, and we carry out research on the effectiveness of our products. As a result, we constantly make changes and modifications in the interests of clear communication. If my hon. Friend has concerns over a particular form perhaps he will write to me.

  Whistleblowers
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security 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. [136055]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Department actively encourages its staff to report any concerns they have about possible wrongdoing, and has in place a range of procedures to enable them to do so.

  From the end of this month we are establishing a dedicated Whistleblowers Hotline to enable staff to report wrongdoing along the lines of the Public Interest Disclosure Act

  Additionally where a departmental civil servant has reported a concern but does not feel they have had an adequate response, then they can of course have recourse to the Civil Service Commissioners.

  If the hon. Member has a particular concern perhaps he will write to me.

  Pensioners (Incomes)
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many pensioners have incomes(a) below, (b) up to £10, (c) £10 to £20, (d) £20 to £30 and (e) £30 or more above the minimum income guarantee level; and if he will identify in each case how many have savings of (i) nil, (ii) £0to £3,000, (iii) £3,000 to £8,000, (iv) £8,000 to £12,000, (v) £12,000 to £20,000 and (vi) £20,000 and above. [134557]

  Mr. Rooker
  The information is in the table.

  Pensioners (Income Support)
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what percentage of pensioners are claiming Income Support; and if he will break this figure down by(a) age and (b) gender. [135754]

  Mr. Bayley
  There are currently 1.6 million pensioners in receipt of the minimum income guarantee. This represents 13.6 per cent. of the pensioner population of Great Britain.

  Minimum income guarantee pensioners as a percentage of

  pensioner population, by age and gender, May 2000

  Percentage

  Age

  Male claimants

  Female claimants

  60–74 years

  9.7

  9.6

  75–79 years

  7.4

  16.3

  80 years and over

  16.0

  33.3

  All pensioners

  10.2

  16.2

  Notes:

  1. Figures are based on a 5 per cent. sample and are therefore subject to a degree of sampling error.

  2. Pensioners are defined as where the claimant, and/or partner are aged 60 or over.

  3. Figure may include claimants who are in Residential Care/Nursing Homes.

  4. Percentages are calculated using the ONS mid-term 1999 population estimates for the relevant gender and age band, and have been rounded to one decimal.

  Sources:

  Income Support Quarterly Statistical Enquiry, May 2000

  Office for National Statistics Mid-term Population Estimates, 1999

  Mr. Alasdair Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many pensioners received the minimum income guarantee in each month since January to date. [135931]

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

  Pensioners receiving the minimum income guarantee, as at

  February and May 2000

  Month

  Number of claimants

  February

  1,604,200

  May

  1,614,500

  Notes:

  1. Figures are based on a 5 per cent. sample and are therefore subject to a degree of sampling error.

  2. Pensioners are defined as where the claimant, and/or partner are aged 60 or over.

  3. Figures are rounded to the nearest hundred.

  Source:

  Income Support Quarterly Statistical Enquiries, February and May 2000

  Pensioners (State Pension)
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many pensioners are not receiving their correct state pension because of the problems with the NIRS2 computer system. [135722]

  Mr. Rooker
  As at 15 September 2000, Benefit Agency offices had 97,000 pension awards waiting to be reviewed. Not all of these, however, will result in the rate 574W
  of pension in payment having to be revised as that rate may be correct because of the contingency arrangements deployed by the Benefits Agency.

  Pensioners (Occupational Pensions)
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish a breakdown by(a) age and (b) gender, of the proportion of pensioners who receive an occupational pension of over £20 per week. [135750]

  Mr. Rooker
  The information is as follows:

  Proportion of individual pensioners in receipt of occupational

  pension income of over £20 per week in 1998–99

  Percentage

  Age

  All

  Males

  Females

  60–64

  22

  n/a

  22

  65–69

  41

  58

  27

  70–74

  39

  56

  24

  75–79

  36

  51

  27

  80 and over

  29

  47

  23

  All over State Pension age

  35

  38

  21

  Notes:

  1. Pensioners are defined as individuals over State Pension age (65 for men, 60 for women). hence males aged 60–64 are not included in the analysis.

  2. Occupational pension income includes amounts paid to widows from occupational pension schemes.

  3. For individuals with more than one occupational pension or widows' pension only the four highest amounts of occupational pension and three highest amounts of widows' pension are taken into account in calculating these percentages.

  Source:

  Family Resources Survey 1998–99

  Sickness Absence
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the progress made by his Department since 1999 in reducing sickness absence; what targets he has agreed with the Cabinet Office; and if he will make a statement. [135495]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 30 October 2000]Since "Working Well Together Report, Managing Attendance In the Public Sector" was issued in 1998, the Department has reviewed and revised the procedures for managing sickness absence in line with the recommendations in that report.

  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.

  This Department has agreed the following targets with Cabinet Office for reducing sickness absence: 20 per cent. reduction to 9.7 average working days lost by December 2001; a 30 per cent. reduction to 8.5 average working days lost by December 2003.

  Earnings Link
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) when he expects to receive the Government
  575W
  Actuary's report under section 36 of the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Act 2000 on the cost of restoring the earnings link; [136045]

  (2) what representations he has made to the Government Actuary's Department regarding the timing of the Actuary's report under section 36 of the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Act 2000 on the cost of restoring the earnings link; [136048]

  (3) if he has received a draft of the Government Actuary's report under section 36 of the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Act 2000 on the cost of restoring the earnings link. [136050]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Government Actuary is currently finalising his report on the effect on the National Insurance Fund of an earnings uprating of basic State Retirement Pension, and it will be published when it is completed.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Harmon CFEM Facades
  Mrs. Roe
  To ask the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, representing the House of Commons Commission, if he will make a statement about the matter of Harmon CFEM Facades v. the Corporate Officer of the House of Commons. [136650]

  Mr. Kirkwood
  The House of Commons Commission settled its dispute with Harmon CFEM Facades (UK) Limited on 16 August 2000 at the figure of £5.26 million, which included a contribution to Harmon's costs. This sum was very substantially less than that claimed by Harmon.

  In making the decision to settle, the Commission took into consideration the judgments of His Honour Judge Humphrey Lloyd QC at the liability trial and at the later interim payment hearing. The subsequent decision in the House's favour of Lord Justice Kennedy to grant permission to appeal the interim payment judgment was a significant factor in reducing the amount of the settlement.

  In deciding to settle the action the Commission took into account that were the House to be awarded its costs of defending the damages action (due to be heard in April 2001) the prospect of recovering them was nil due to Harmon's insolvency.

  While the Commission is satisfied that a settlement was obtained at a figure substantially less than the amount of Harmon's claim, it is reviewing the outcome of the case.

PRIME MINISTER

  Prime Minister's Office
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will estimate what the cost of his Office will be for 2000–01. [134434]

  The Prime Minister
  holding answer 26 October 2000]The cost of my Office from 1 April 2000 to 30 September 2000 was £5.4 million.

  Social Exclusion Unit
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will set out the Social Exclusion Unit's current priorities. [136912]

  The Prime Minister
  Following an extensive consultation exercise over the summer, and the outcome of the spending review, the unit will be publishing shortly an action plan setting out how the national strategy for neighbourhood renewal will be delivered.

  The unit is also continuing to monitor implementation of its reports on truancy and school exclusion, rough sleeping, teenage pregnancy and 16 to 18-year-olds not in education, employment or training.

  In addition, I have asked the unit to work with other Government Departments to explore how we might cut rates of re-offending by ex-prisoners.

  The SEU will look at how to boost the rate of employment and reduce the level of homelessness among ex-prisoners. It will also consider whether more effective supervision after release might help to reduce the current high levels of re-offending.

  I have asked the SEU to report to me by spring 2001.

  I will make a further statement on the unit's future work programme shortly.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Government Energy Policy
  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the Government's energy policy. [133903]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Government are committed to competition and to an energy policy based on secure, diverse and sustainable energy supplies at competitive prices.

  Privatised Utilities
  Mr. Bill O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent steps he has taken to ensure consumers of services provided by privatised utilities receive value for money; and if he will make a statement. [133904]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Government have brought in the Utilities Act 2000 which places the consumer at the heart of gas and electricity regulation. In addition, the Government work closely with Oftel to ensure that the regulatory system for telecoms operates to promote competition to benefit the consumer. Later this year we will be publishing a Communications White Paper which will set out the Government's proposals for the reform of the framework of communications regulation.

  National Changeover Plan
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much money his Department has spent on implementing the National Changeover Plan. [133905]
  577W
  Mrs. Liddell
  Information on changeover planning is contained in the second Outline National Changeover plan, published on 9 March.

  Motor Industry
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of the prospects for the motor industry in the UK. [133909]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  The prospects for the UK motor industry are good. 1999 car production was the highest since 1972; sales were the fourth highest on record and UK exports were the highest ever. Since 1997, some 9,600 new jobs have been announced with over £3 billion of new investment.

  Sub-post Offices
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what measures he proposes to take to ensure the maintenance of sub-post office services. [133910]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  The Government are committed to maintaining a nationwide network of post offices. That commitment was clearly demonstrated when the Government accepted all 24 recommendations of the PIU report, "Counter Revolution Modernising the Post Office Network", published in June. To implement the proposals contained in the PIU report the Government have been working closely with the Post Office to develop robust business plans to take forward initiatives to safeguard the future of the network.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will estimate the number of sub-post offices that have closed since 1 January. [133921]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  Estimates of the number of sub-post offices have not been produced on a calendar or part-year basis by the Post Office in the past and are therefore not available from 1 January to the present. The Post Office Annual Report and Accounts include the numbers of post offices on a financial year basis. In the financial year 1999–2000, there was a net loss of 382 post offices, of which 380 were sub-post offices.

  In the light of the Performance and Innovation Unit report on modernising the post office network, the Post Office is revising its methods of collating and reporting information on the network to supply to the Postal Services Commission. The Post Office is currently agreeing with the Commission a process and format for reporting such information quarterly. In the first half of the current financial year, commencing 27 March, there has been a net loss of 333 post offices. The number of rural closures at the half year stage has declined but there has been an increase in the number of town closures (practically all of which have been force majeure). While concerns about the future are undoubtedly a factor, more detailed analysis is taking place to try to identify specific reasons for this change. Due to various factors, including offices closing and reopening within the same financial year, it is not possible to forecast full year figures from quarterly information.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many sub-post offices have closed in each month of the current calendar year, in each region of the UK. [135106]
  578W
  Mr. Alan Johnson
  In the light of the Performance and Innovation Unit report on modernising the post office network, the Post Office is revising its methods of collating and reporting information on the network to supply to the Postal Services Commission. The Post Office is currently agreeing with the Commission a process and format for reporting such information quarterly. In the first two quarters of the current financial year, commencing 27 March, the net closures of sub-post office by the Post Office's internal territorial areas were as follows:

  Quarter 1

  Quarter 2

  North

  51

  69

  West

  56

  54

  East

  38

  63

  Due to various factors, including offices closing and reopening within the same financial year, it is not possible to forecast full-year figures from quarterly information.

  Manufacturing Industry
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps he is taking to improve the long-term viability of manufacturing industry. [133906]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  We are assisting manufacturing industry to improve its long-term prospects by providing a stable macro-economic framework and by pursuing policies that help firms to innovate and grow.

  21. Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of the performance of manufacturing industry in the north-east. [133911]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The performance of manufacturing industry in the north-east is constantly assessed by a number of organisations. The Government Office for the north-east and the regional development agency, ONE NorthEast, are in regular contact with other partners over business matters in the region.

  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of the performance of manufacturing industry in the west midlands. [133912]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Government Office for the West Midlands and Advantage West Midlands, the regional development agency, work closely with partners on matters relating to business and the regional economy. In addition to national assessments such as the Annual Census of Production, the regional studies have included an assessment of the automotive industry as part of the work of the Rover Task Force.

  Mr. Michael J. Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will assess the performance of manufacturing industry in Worcestershire. [133925]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  There are no plans to assess the performance of manufacturing industry specifically at the national, regional or sub-regional level. The Annual Census of Production, which is compiled by the Office for National Statistics (ONS) as part of the Annual Business Inquiry, does give some indication of relative
  579W
  performance of manufacturing industry in that it provides data on gross value added per employee on a national and regional basis. This information is freely available in publications such as "Regional Trends" and the "Regional Competitiveness" Indicators. This information can be analysed at a sub-regional level but the ONS does charge for this service. However, the DTI does pay for a sub-regional analysis on a Training and Enterprise Council (TEC) area.

  Euro
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much his Department has spent preparing small businesses for UK membership of the euro. [133913]

  Mrs. Liddell
  Nothing.

  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of the impact on the British economy of joining the euro. [133915]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Government have set out five economic tests which will have to be met before any decision to join can be taken. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said that the Treasury will make another assessment of the five tests early in the next Parliament.

  Electronic Commerce
  Mr. St. Aubyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the regulatory burden on electronic commerce. [133914]

  Mrs. Liddell
  This Government have set themselves the goal of being the best place in the world to trade on line. Our clear strategy to achieve this is set out in the UK online annual report, which was launched on 11 September. In addition, we are working closely with the Better Regulation Task Force to identify existing or potential regulatory burdens on e-commerce.

  Magnox Power Stations
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of the implications for the UK's ability to meet its long-term climate change targets of the magnox power stations closure programme. [133916]

  Mrs. Liddell
  In March my Department issued "Energy Projections for the UK; Working Paper", which included assumptions on energy generation from nuclear plants and their life expectancy. BNFL's announcement on 23 May this year of its strategy for its Magnox stations has no implications for the UK's ability to meet its climate change targets under the Kyoto Protocal.

  Radio Spectrum
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on future auctions of the radio spectrum. [133917]

  Mrs. Liddell
  Auctions have important advantages as a method of assigning radio spectrum. They are fair, transparent and efficient in awarding licences to those who will use them to best advantage. Following the successful Third Generation auction earlier this year,580W
  auctions will continue to be used, where appropriate, to achieve optimal use of spectrum, facilitate faster roll-out of new services and promote competition. My hon. Friend the Minister of State for Small Business and E-Commerce announced on 15 June 2000, Official Report, columns 699–700W our intention to award by auction licences for the provision of broadband fixed wireless access at 28 GHz. We will also be considering whether further licences for the provision of broadband fixed wireless access at 40 GHz should be awarded by auction.

  Employment Relations Act 1999 (Trade Unions)
  Mr. Healey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received since the coming into force of the provisions of the Employment Relations Act 1999 on(a) individual trade union representation and (b) collective trade union recognition. [133918]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  No representations have been received on the right to be accompanied at disciplinary and grievance hearings, which came into effect on 4 September 2000. Since the statutory procedure on trade union recognition came into force on 6 June 2000, my Department has received two requests for a meeting on the procedure.

  Gas-fired Power Stations
  Mr. Paul Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the Government's policy on the building of new gas-fired power stations. [133919]

  Mrs. Liddell
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made clear that his intention to lift the stricter consents policy, applying to new power stations, in November remains unchanged.

  EU Membership
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he intends to visit the principal applicant countries for EU membership to discuss their applications. [133923]

  Mrs. Liddell
  DTI ministers regularly visit the EU candidate countries and discuss issues related to EU accession with their Governments. Although my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has no immediate plans to visit any of the countries, I intend to visit Warsaw in December to discuss enlargement and the wider EU economic agenda.

  Science
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on his programme for the public understanding of science. [133924]

  Mrs. Liddell
  My Department's Public Understanding programme aims to create as many opportunities as possible for people to learn about recent scientific developments and to debate their value and the issues that they raise for society. It also aims to generate interest in SET among young people in order to develop and encourage lifelong interest in these subjects and possibly leading to the pursuit of science-based careers.

  Postal Services
  Dr. George Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the implementation of the Government's support for the post office network. [133922]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  The Post Office has been urgently developing plans to implement the recommendations of the PIU report on network modernisation. Subject to validation by a robust business case, Government support will be available for modernising and maintaining the rural network, restructuring of the urban network, establishing and operating universal banking services and pilot trials for the development of Government General Practitioner and internet access and learning point facilities. Under the Spending Review, as the first stage of modernising the post office network, ring-fenced support of £270 million over the next three years has been allocated for new investment to start the implementation of the PIU report.

  Universal Bank
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many commercial banks have agreed to work with the Government and the Post Office in the creation of a universal bank; and how many have declined invitations to do so. [134898]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  The Post Office and the high street banks are continuing to work together to develop the concept of universal banking services and the Government are closely monitoring developments.

  Mining (Respiratory Diseases)
  Mr. Alasdair Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many(a) Scottish and (b) UK claimants of compensation for mining-related respiratory diseases have (i) received their final settlement and (ii) died before receiving their final settlement. [135123]

  Mrs. Liddell
  To date the Department has settled 5,161 claims in full and final settlement, of these 557 were claimants in Scotland.

  IRISC, the Department's claims handling agents, have been informed of 6,314 claims where the claimant has died since lodging a claim, of these 612 were claimants in Scotland.

  Issues remain outstanding that prevent full and final offers in all cases. These issues are in discussion with the solicitors representing the claimants and in the meantime, wherever possible, we will continue to make interim offers following the full assessments, the level of such have been significantly increased to enable offers totalling £100 million to be made by Christmas.

  Mr. Alasdair Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he expects all compensation payments to ex-miners suffering from respiratory diseases to have been completed. [135121]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Department has received around 123,000 claims and these continue to rise by around 1,000 a week. This is a unique process as the biggest personal injury cases in British history, an estimate of two to three years has been given but kept under review. Under normal circumstances, with full court action, the process can take 582W
  a minimum 10 to 15 years. We are giving priority to claims from those most old and ill, widows and those most likely (on the basis of initial testing) to have emphysema.

  Trading Arrangements
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) when the New Electricity Trading Arrangements will commence; [135048]

  (2) when he will end the stricter consents policy on new gas-fired power stations. [135049]

  Mrs. Liddell
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 30 October 2000,Official Report, column 221W, to my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard).

  North-West Science Review
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the reasons why the Jodrell Bank observatory Merlin project bid was not granted funding by the North-West Science Review; and if he will make a statement. [135869]

  Dr. Howells
  A total of 52 proposals were received by the North-West Science Review Team. They were not only subjected to peer review to ensure that only excellent science would be funded, but judged by other criteria such as their likely impact on the north-west science base, and on their potential contribution to the future of the north-west economy. The e-Merlin proposal was not ranked highly enough to receive funding when judged against these criteria.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the recipients of funding recently announced by the North-West Science Review; and if he will make a statement. [135868]

  Dr. Howells
  On 16 October, my noble Friend the Minister for Science and Technology announced that nine science projects in the north-west were to share in £26 million of Government funding. The Daresbury Laboratory, the University of Liverpool, the Liverpool John Moores University, the University of Manchester, the University of Salford and UMIST are all in the lead on projects being funded. The other members of the successful consortia are the University of Lancaster, the Salford Royal Hospitals Trust, the Christie Hospital Trust and the Paterson Institute for Cancer Research.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what priorities his Department has set for the funding of science projects based in the North-West of England. [135867]

  Dr. Howells
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry's Department's criteria for the funding of science projects across the United Kingdom science base is scientific excellence.

  With regard to the North-West Science Review, the overriding priority remained scientific excellence, however other criteria such as the likely impact on the north-west science base and the potential contribution to the future of the north-west economy were also taken into account.
  583W
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received about(a) the Jodrell Bank observatory Merlin project bid to the North-West Science Review and (b) the future funding of the observatory. [135870]

  Dr. Howells
  (a) My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has received one letter from a Member of the European Parliament about the e-Merlin project bid to the North-West Science Review. In addition, the Minister for Science has received a second letter on the same topic from a Member of Parliament.

  (b) My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has received one letter on the future funding of Jodrell Bank from a Member of Parliament. In addition, the Minister for Science has received two letters on the same topic, one form a Member of Parliament and one from a representative of a local Government association. The Prime Minister has received one letter on this topic from a member of the public.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he expects a decision from the North-West Science and Daresbury Development Group on the Jodrell Bank Observatory Merlin project bid for funding; and what representations he has received regarding the funding review.[135871]

  Dr. Howells
  The North-West Science and Daresbury Development Group is not considering the e-Merlin project proposal. This proposal was considered by the North West Science Review Team, whose recommendations for funding were announced by my noble Friend the Minister for Science on 16 October 2000. This proposal was not recommended for funding.

  With regard to representation, I have received one letter from Chris Davies, Member of the European Parliament, and in addition, the Minister for Science has received one letter from my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs. Ellman).

  Widescreen Televisions
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps he is taking to ensure that widescreen televisions sold in the UK are clearly labelled to distinguish whether they are digital or analogue. [135908]

  Dr. Howells
  Consumers should be able to make an informed choice between buying an integrated digital television and an analogue television with a set top box in order to receive digital broadcasts. The Trade Descriptions Act 1968 prohibits false or misleading descriptions of products—whether by means of a label or by any other means, such as an oral statement. It would therefore be an offence to describe a television set falsely and, if there are instances where traders are misdescribing analogue TVs as digital, I would urge consumers to get in touch with their local trading standards department. My Department is contacting the Local Authorities Co-Ordinating Body on Food and Trading Standards (Lacots) to establish the nature and extent of any problem in this area.

  Exporting Businesses (Financial Support)
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has to extend pre-shipment financial support to exporting businesses through(a) ECGD and (b) other means. [135591]

  Mr. Caborn
  [holding answer 31 October 2000]ECGD does already provide finance through its Buyer Credit and Supplier Credit Schemes for progress payments which are identified in the commercial contract. This means that the exporter can receive moneys from the financing arrangements for work completed at each progress payment milestone.

  Exporters that require working capital to fund work in progress secure these funds through their commercial banking facilities.

  Price Transparency
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what studies his Department has undertaken on the competition effects of increased price transparency due to use of the Internet; and if he will make a statement. [136025]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 1 November 2000]The Government believe that the internet and e-commerce are generally beneficial to competition. They increase the range of supplies for many products and services. Price transparency is just one aspect. The DTI has not conducted studies on the competition effects of increased price transparency.

  Carbon Dioxide Emissions
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the reasons for projected increases in carbon dioxide emissions after 2000. [136092]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  Projections will reflect a complex interaction of factors, though significant contributions to projected increased emissions post 2000 are increased economic output, projected fall in nuclear capacity and increases in transport emissions. Details of the assumptions can be found in the working paper entitled, "Energy Projections for the UK," available in the Library of the House, which describes the DTI energy model used to make the projections. The Government are putting in place measures to tackle this emissions growth. Their draft climate change programme identified quantified measures that could reduce CO2 emissions in 2010 by 17.5 per cent. below 1990 levels.

  Community Hospitals
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received about a purchase by Schroders Salomon Smith Barney of a share of Community Hospitals. [136017]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 1 November 2000]On 8 August my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry announced that he had asked the Competition Commission to consider the question of whether the acquisition of 26.8 per cent. of the ordinary share capital of Community Hospitals Group by enterprises under the control of Salomon International LLC and BUPA constituted a merger and, if so, whether
  585W
  or not the merger would operate against the public interest. The Commission have called for evidence and are due to deliver their report to the Department by 8 November.

  During the Commission's investigation into a merger, it is my practice to forward any representations which I receive to the Commission so that they can take the views expressed into consideration in formulating their report.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps his Department is taking to ascertain that the purchase by Schroders Salomon Smith Barney of a share of Community Hospitals complies with the intent and terms of undertakings given by BUPA at the time of its acquisition of Goldsborough plc. [136018]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 1 November 2000]The acquisition of 26.8 per cent. of the ordinary share capital of Community Hospitals Group by Schroders Salomon Smith Barney is being considered by the Competition Commission alongside BUPA's proposals to acquire all of Community Hospitals Group. It is for the Competition Commission to consider whether or not either merger operates against the public interest. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry will consider what action, if any, should be taken in the light of the Commission's report.

  Scientific Research
  Mrs. Ellman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the arrangements by which(a) the Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council and (b) the Council for the Central Laboratory of the Research Council are made accountable to his Department. [133897]

  Dr. Howells
  The Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council and the Council for the Central Laboratory of the Research Council are, in common with all of the Research Councils, accountable through their Chief Executives to the Director General Research Councils (DGRC) in the Office of Science and Technology of DTI. The DGRC in turn is accountable to the Permanent Secretary of DTI, who is the Accounting Officer for the Department.

  CARAD Programme
  Mr. Mudie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the prospects for the CARAD programme following the Comprehensive Spending Review. [133886]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  Under the DTI's Civil Aircraft Research and Technology Demonstration (CARAD) programme we have maintained close contact with the UK aerospace industry, supported new CARAD projects and implemented important initiatives in key areas of technology. The future funding levels for CARAD will be reviewed carefully alongside the other budgets and priorities supported by the DTI. Details of the allocations for the next three financial years for all DTI budgets, including CARAD, will be announced when the Department publishes its Expenditure Plans Report next March.

  Whistleblowers
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry 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. [136059]

  Dr. Howells
  The procedure is set out in the DTI staff handbook.

  If a member of staff feels that the performance of any part of their duties raises a fundamental issue of conscience they should consult a senior officer.

  If necessary and if a problem cannot be resolved by other means staff are advised that they may take the matter up with the Principal Establishment and Finance Officer and the Permanent Head of the Department, and that they have a right to have the matter referred to the Head of the Home Civil Service through the Permanent Head of the Department. If a member of staff feels that the response does not represent a reasonable response to their grounds for concern, they may report the matter in writing to the Civil Service Commissioners.

  The Department has also designated a senior DTI manager, who has agreed to be available to discuss issues of conscience with any member of staff who may prefer to raise a matter outside the usual channels on a confidential basis.

  European Charter of Fundamental Rights
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of the implications of Article 15 of the draft Charter of Fundamental Rights for disqualified company directors. [134819]

  Mr. Vaz
  I have been asked to reply.

  The charter will be a political declaration of rights, freedoms and principles and is not legally binding.

  Article 15 reiterates the right to freedom of movement of workers, freedom of establishment and freedom to provide services in any member state guaranteed by the Treaty establishing the European Community.

  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) today, column 555–56W.

  Utility Regulators
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list for each year since the office was established(a) the number of employees and (b) the total running costs of (i) the Office of Telecommunications, (ii) the Office of Gas Supply, (iii) the Office of Electricity Regulations and (iv) the Office of Water Services. [135050]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  I have been asked to reply.

  The information is published in the Regulators' annual reports and in the annual Appropriation Accounts, copies of which are in the Library.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Central Asia
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assistance her Department is providing to the drought affected areas of Central Asia. [135215]

  Clare Short
  We are taking a regional approach in our response to the drought which is affecting a belt of countries across the whole of Asia. So far we have committed over £5 million for humanitarian assistance in the drought affected countries. Further funds have been set aside to respond to needs in Central Asia specifically. We are currently considering proposals from a number of international agencies, including UN organisations, the Red Cross and international NGOs.

  Major Disasters
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if he will list the major disasters for which her Department has provided(a) emergency aid and (b) redevelopment support over the last 10 years, indicating the effectiveness of the support given in each case. [135395]

  Mr. Foulkes
  Over the last 10 years, this Department (and its predecessor) has provided emergency aid in a large number of major disasters and it would take a long time to retrieve the details requested. However, since 1997 this Department has provided humanitarian assistance on more than 80 occasions in over 60 countries. During 2000, DFID has provided speedy and appropriate relief to a number of disasters, including floods in West Bengal, Bangladesh, Vietnam and Cambodia, a hurricane in Belize, typhoon and tidal wave in North Korea and droughts in Asia and East Africa. We have also continued to provide humanitarian assistance to people affected by conflict in many countries, such as Afghanistan, Sierra Leone and Sudan.

  Where disasters occur frequently or result in prolonged crises, we are increasingly promoting preparedness and mitigation measures as part of longer-term development programmes. This includes analysing common hazards and their impact on poor people, and assessing the effect of recurrent crises on achieving the targets of sustainable international development.

  We are working to strengthen the international humanitarian system. For example, we are working with the Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement to improve their preparedness and response to disasters, specifically in poor countries. We are supplying the United Nations organisations such as the Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs, the World Food Programme, the United Nations Children Fund, and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, to improve the speed and effectiveness of their responses. We are encouraging the international non-governmental organisations to strengthen standards of assistance for those affected by disasters.

  We are working to ensure that the assistance we provide is as effective as possible. To this end it is always based on proper assessment of needs and delivery supervised to prevent the diversion of goods away from those in most need. We only fund reputable agencies or
  588W
  NGOs which are already established in the disaster-affected country or have experienced local partners. In addition, we are working in partnership with NGOs to agree minimum standards of assistance.

  Whistleblowers
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what procedures exist in her 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. [136057]

  Mr. Foulkes
  Together with the civil service code itself, the procedure to be followed in such circumstances is set out in this Department's staff handbook. Three senior officers are designated as being available to advise staff and to investigate such complaints. Staff have the right to approach them at any time. The procedures also provide for the right to raise such matters with the permanent secretary and, if necessary, with the Civil Service Commissioners. Staff may also be protected by the provisions of the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998.

  Publications
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much her "Literature Survey on intellectual property rights and sustainable human development" cost to produce. [136634]

  Mr. Foulkes
  The report "Literature Survey on intellectual property rights and sustainable human development" cost £2,500 to produce.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Sport (Schools)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Education and Employment about the promotion of an anti-drugs strategy via the teaching of sport in schools. [134715]

  Kate Hoey
  My right hon. Friend and I liaise regularly with ministerial colleagues about sport in schools and physical education. The Government are particularly aware of the potential of sport as a tool for educating young people about health and fitness and for helping them to develop a healthy and safe life style, hence initiatives such as Positive Futures, a joint project involving Sport England, the Youth Justice Board and the UK Anti-Drugs Co-ordination Unit, which aims to help vulnerable children avoid drug misuse and crime through sporting activities.

  Free Television Licence
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many pensioners aged over 75 years(a) do not own a television, (b) already pay a reduced TV licence fee, (c) live in a household where someone else under 75 pays for the TV licence and (d) will be entitled

  589W
  to the free TV licence instead of paying a full TV licence fee at present; and what proportion of all pensioners aged over 75 years this represents in each case. [134537]

  Janet Anderson
  Based on information provided by the BBC, the answers to the hon. Member's questions are as follows:

  (a) the number of people aged 75 or over who do not own a television set is not known, but over 97 per cent. of all households have television;

  (b) 0.5 million households who currently qualify for a concessionary television licence include a person aged 75 or over;

  (c) no information is available on the age of the person who has previously paid the television licence fee in households where there is a resident aged 75 or over; and

  (d) an estimated 3.1 million households which currently pay the full licence fee will receive a free licence from 1 November.

  Television licences cover households rather than individuals, so presenting the above figures as a proportion of the total number of people aged 75 or over would be misleading. There are an estimated 4.35 million people aged 75 or over in the United Kingdom, all of whom are entitled to benefit from a free television licence, but the estimated number of free licences that will be issued is 3.6 million.

  National Lottery
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much National Lottery money has been raised for good causes in each week since May 1997. [134481]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  [holding answer 26 October 2000]I have placed copies of a table showing weekly payments into the National Lottery Distribution Fund by the lottery operator since the beginning of May 1997 in the Libraries of the House (the figures exclude one-off annual payments).

  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what estimate he has made of the level of returns from the lottery to the good causes in the next licence period. [135903]

  Kate Hoey
  None; the letting of the next National Lottery licence is a matter for the National Lottery Commission. The Commission has statutory duties to ensure that the National Lottery is run with all due propriety, that the interests of players are protected and, subject to these two criteria, to maximise the returns to good causes.

  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assessment he has made of the impact on ticket sales of the selection process for the next lottery operator. [135904]

  Kate Hoey
  None; Ministers are not involved in the process of selecting the next operator, which is a matter for the National Lottery Commission.

  New Opportunities Fund
  Judy Mallaber
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when he intends to make an announcement about future initiatives in health, education and the environment to be funded by the National Lottery through the New Opportunities Fund. [136809]
  590W
  Mr. Chris Smith
  On Monday 6 November, I shall be publishing and laying before Parliament a consultation document, "New Opportunities from the Lottery". Copies will be widely available from my Department and through the Stationery Office. I hope that our proposals will receive widespread support and I look forward to receiving views on how best we can take them forward.

  Ministerial Engagements
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, pursuant to his answer of 30 October 2000,Official Report, column 331W, on ministerial engagements, if he will list the total number of engagements (a) accepted, (b) cancelled and (c) where an official attended in his place. [136177]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  My hon. Friend the Minister for the Arts attended 200 engagements with non-governmental bodies in the year to 31 October. On eight occasions he was obliged not to fulfil engagements, and on three of these an official attended in his place.

  Whistleblowers
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport 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.[136056]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  Paragraph 11 of the civil service code outlines the circumstances in which civil servants may report actions which fall under(a), (b), (c) and (d). In my Department the code is operated under the grievance/complaints procedures which are set out in the DCMS staff handbook.

  Individuals making a complaint are encouraged to report the matter to their line manager and divisional head within one month of the incident or action of which they are reporting. If staff are not satisfied with their findings, they may appeal to the personnel director (in the first instance) and, ultimately, to the permanent secretary. Alternatively, staff can report the matter to the head of personnel and central services division.

  If after this staff are still not satisfied with the response, they may appeal under section 12 of the civil service code to the Civil Service Commissioners.

  Film Classification
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assessment he has made of the proposed changes to film classification in respect of(a) sex and (b) violence. [134704]

  Mr. Straw
  I have been asked to reply.

  The British Board of Film Classification (BBFC) published its revised classification guidelines in respect of film and video on 14 September. The guidelines reflect the outcome of an extensive consultation and research exercise into public opinion undertaken by the Board. Under the new guidelines, the Board will be more restrictive in the lower classifications on violence, drugs and bad language.
  591W
  In respect of material classified in the Restricted 18 (R18) category, which is only available in licensed sex shops to those aged 18 and over, the hon. Member may recall that, on 24 July, the Government published a consultation paper to consider whether there were any additional steps that could be taken to protect children from exposure to sexually explicit material contained in videos given an R18 classification by the Board. The consultation period closed on 31 October.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Omagh Inquest Inquiry
  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the total cost to date of the Omagh inquest inquiry. [135857]

  Mr. Lock
  I have been asked to reply.

  The total cost to date, inclusive of VAT, of the Omagh inquest is £1,402,000. This represents accommodation and IT costs only.

  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what are the agreed legal fees to banisters and solicitors involved in the Omagh inquest inquiry. [135855]

  Mr. Lock
  I have been asked to reply.

  The legal fees payable from the extra-statutory scheme for representation at the Omagh inquest for the families which sought public funding were based on existing legal aid rates. It is anticipated that £216,787.50 will be paid in fees in respect of the 12 families represented at the inquest.

  Probation Board for Northern Ireland
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he will publish the Probation Board for Northern Ireland's Annual report for 1999–2000. [136779]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Probation Board's Annual Report for 1999–2000 was published on 2 November 2000

  A copy of the Report has been placed in the Library.

  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he will publish the Probation Board for Northern Ireland's Business Plan for 2000–01. [136778]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Probation Board's Business Plan for 2000–01 was published on November 2000. The Plan sets out the Board's key performance targets for the year. Copies of the Plan have been placed in the Library.

  Terrorists Incidents
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland for each Police Division in Northern Ireland, how many(a) bomb scares or warnings, (b) car-bombs recovered by the security forces, (c) arson and bomb attacks on premises (d) cases of intimidation
  592W
  and (e) shooting incidents there were (1) from 1 January to 30 September and (2) in October to date, indicating (A) how many were related to (i) Loyalist terrorist organisations and (ii) Republican terrorist organisations and (B) how many deaths and injuries were involved and what damage to property resulted from such activity. [134295]

  Mr. Ingram
  The information requested is not held in a form which allows all of these questions to be answered. However, the following tables show for the period mentioned the number of hoax bombing incidents, bombing incidents, shooting incidents, recorded arson attacks on churches, chapels, schools, orange halls and GGA/AOH property, the number of deaths and the number of injuries recorded as a result of the security situation in Northern Ireland. Only in the case of deaths can attribution be given. No records of intimidation are available.

  Hoax Bombing Incidents

  Police Division

  1 January to 30 September 2000

  1 October to 19 October 2000

  A

  4

  —

  B

  5

  —

  D

  15

  —

  E

  3

  —

  G

  2

  —

  H

  2

  —

  J

  16

  —

  K

  4

  1

  L

  3

  —

  N

  2

  —

  O

  6

  —

  P

  6

  —

  Total

  68

  1

  Note:

  Includes all hoax bombing incidents which were attended by Ammunition Technical Officers.

  Bombing Incidents

  Police Division

  1 January to 30 September 2000

  1 October to 19 October 2000

  A

  4

  1

  B

  2

  1

  D

  21

  1

  E

  1

  1

  G

  3

  —

  H

  9

  —

  J

  10

  —

  K

  4

  —

  L

  2

  —

  N

  2

  —

  O

  14

  2

  P

  10

  2

  Total

  83

  8

  Notes:

  1. An individual bombing incident may involve one or more explosive devices. Incidents recorded include explosions and defusings. Incidents involving hoax devices, petrol bombs or incendiaries are excluded.

  2. Year 2000 statistics are provisional and may be subject to minor adjustment.
  593W

  Shooting Incidents

  Police Division

  1 January to 30 September 2000

  1 October to 19 October 2000

  A

  28

  2

  B

  26

  5

  D

  98

  5

  E

  7

  1

  G

  7

  2

  H

  5

  —

  J

  16

  —

  K

  4

  —

  L

  —

  —

  N

  16

  —

  O

  14

  1

  P

  15

  1

  Total

  236

  16

  Notes:

  1. The following types of incidents are included:

  shots fired by terrorists

  shots fired by the security forces

  paramilitary-style attacks involving shootings

  shots heard (and later confirmed)

  other violent incidents where shots are fired (e.g. armed robbery).

  2. Year 2000 statistics are provisional and may be subject to minor adjustment.

  Arson attacks on properties from 1 January to 19 October 2000

  Police Division

  Churches/Chapels

  Schools

  Orange halls

  GAA/AOH

  A

  1

  —

  —

  —

  B

  2

  6

  —

  —

  D

  8

  3

  3

  —

  E

  —

  2

  —

  —

  G

  —

  1

  1

  —

  H

  —

  —

  1

  —

  J

  3

  —

  3

  —

  K

  1

  —

  3

  —

  L

  —

  3

  4

  1

  N

  —

  1

  —

  —

  O

  1

  —

  1

  3

  P

  5

  4

  2

  2

  Total

  21

  20

  18

  6

  Notes:

  1. Excludes incidents which were due to vandalism where there was no Sectarian motive. Details of arson attacks on other types of property (e.g. dwellings) are not available at present.

  2. Year 2000 statistics are provisional and may be subject to minor adjustment.

  Deaths

  1 January to 30 September 2000

  1 October to 19 October 2000

  Police Division

  by Loyalist

  by Republican

  by Loyalist

  by Republican

  A

  —

  1

  —

  —

  B

  —

  —

  —

  1

  D

  4

  —

  —

  —

  E

  —

  —

  —

  —

  G

  —

  —

  —

  —

  H

  2

  —

  —

  —

  J

  1

  —

  —

  —

  K

  —

  —

  —

  —

  L

  —

  —

  —

  —

  N

  —

  —

  —

  —

  O

  —

  1

  —

  —

  P

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  8

  2

  —

  1

  594W

  Injuries

  Police Division

  1 January to 30 September 2000

  1 October to 19 October 2000

  A

  95

  5

  B

  128

  11

  D

  230

  19

  E

  39

  1

  G

  32

  2

  H

  25

  5

  J

  161

  —

  K

  20

  —

  L

  7

  —

  N

  76

  —

  O

  8

  1

  P

  32

  4

  Total

  853

  48

  Notes:

  1. Includes all injuries as a result of the security situation and serious public disorder.

  2. Year 2000 statistics are provisional and may be subject to minor adjustment.

  Police Service
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, pursuant to his answer of 23 October 2000,Official Report, column 16W, on the police service, on what date the Chief Constable initiated the review of the RUC appraisal system to take account of human rights performance; who was instructed to take charge of this review; what is this officer's rank; and what are the terms of reference of the review. [135823]

  Mr. Ingram
  A review of the current appraisal system commenced in the autumn of 1999. Since the spring of 2000, the review has been widened to take account of Patten's recommendations. The review is proceeding in tandem with the work of the national appraisal group and the revised system will incorporate human rights issues. The Assistant Chief Constable, Personnel and Training, has overall responsibility for this work and in addition to considering the human rights issues, is undertaking periodic reviews to address the following areas:

  (a) the general effectiveness of the appraisal system;

  (b) that the interviews and forms are being completed in accordance with the timetable;

  (c) that the policing priorities agreed by the appraisee and appraiser are consistent with local and strategic objectives;

  (d) the quality of the completed forms;

  (e) the quality of the development plans;

  (f) that appropriate procedures are in place, both at headquarters and at local level, to deal with those matters which arise from the process;

  (g) the perception of all those involved in the process in terms of openness, fairness and value.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, pursuant to his answer of 23 October 2000,Official Report, column 13W, if he will place a copy of the revised conduct regulations for the police in the Library. [135804]

  Mr. Ingram
  Copies of all the new regulations pertaining to the Royal Ulster Constabulary and covering conduct, complaints and appeals have now been placed in the Library of the House.
  595W
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, pursuant to his answer of 23 October 2000,Official Report, column 19W, what representations he has received concerning possible venues for annual conferences of police services north and south of the Border; what dates are being considered for the first such conference; and if this conference will be open to attendance by (a) the Police Ombudsman, (b) the Human Rights Commission, (c) the Equality Commission, (d) nongovernmental organisations and (e) the press. [135731]

  Mr. Ingram
  I have nothing to add to my previous answer.

  Sickness Absence
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the progress made by his Department since 1999 in reducing sickness absence; what targets he has agreed with the Cabinet Office; and if he will make a statement. [135463]

  Mr. Mandelson
  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 years 2001 to 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 Secretary of State for Northern Ireland 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. [135454]

  Mr. Mandelson
  The Civil Service Code is set out in full in the Northern Ireland Office Home Civil Service Staff Handbook. The procedures which staff should follow when they wish to report matters in the categories listed are also set out in the Staff Handbook in the section on Complaints about Personal Matters. This section includes details about the Independent Departmental Adviser with whom staff may discuss their concerns, and the circumstances in which they may write direct to the Civil Service Commissioners.

HEALTH

  Antipsychotic Drugs
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what research his Department has evaluated into the risk of idiopathic venous thromboembolism in users of conventional antipsychotic drugs; [134266]

  (2) what guidance his Department issues to psychiatrists concerning the risk of idiopathic venous thromboembolism in users of conventional antipsychotic drugs. [134267]
  596W
  Ms Stuart
  The Medicines Control Agency (MCA) is currently evaluating an epidemiological study published in the Lancet1 on the 7 October 2000, which suggests an increased risk of first time idiopathic venous thromboembolism in current users of anti-psychotics compared to non-users.

  As well as the published medical literature, the MCA uses a number of sources of information to assess risk, including the UK spontaneous reporting scheme (the Yellow Card Scheme). Independent expert advice will be sought from the Committee on Safety of Medicines, who will be asked to advise on any guidance for health professionals including psychiatrists.
  1Antipsychotic drug use and risk of first-time idiopathic venous thromboembolism: a case control study. Zornberg GL Jick H. Lancet 2000; 356:1219–23.

  Dystonia
  Mr. Hilary Benn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research his Department has carried out into dystonia. [134467]

  Mr. Denham
  The Department has not carried out any research into dystonia.

  The main Government agency for research into the causes of disease is the Medical Research Council (MRC), funded via grant-in-aid from the office of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. The MRC provided more than £3 million in 1999–2000 for research into movement disorders, including dystonia.

  Beta Interferon
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions he has had with the National Institute for Clinical Excellence about its appraisal of the cost effectiveness of beta interferon. [134775]

  Mr. Denham
  The Department as one of the many stakeholders was given the opportunity to comment on National Institute for Clinical Excellence's provisional appraisal determination and draft guidance on beta interferon for the treatment of multiple sclerosis. Like other stakeholders we are awaiting the outcome of the appeal which has been made against the final appraisal determination.

  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people with multiple sclerosis were part of the National Institute for Clinical Excellence review team on prescribing beta interferon. [135481]

  Mr. Denham
  The Department does not hold this information; details of the appraisal process are a matter for the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE). NICE has not yet published its final guidance on beta interferon for the treatment of multiple sclerosis, but will in accordance with its usual procedure have consulted interested parties including patient representative groups.

  Cannabis
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what his policy is towards prescription of cannabis for medicinal purposes by NHS doctors. [134741]
  597W
  Mr. Hutton
  We consider that doctors should not prescribe cannabis until the quality, safety and efficacy of a medical form have been scientifically established and a marketing authorisation issued by the Medical Control Agency. This is a procedure that all prospective new medicines must go through.

  When the benefits of a cannabis-based medicine have been scientifically demonstrated, the Government would be willing to amend the misuse of drugs controls to allow the prescribing of such a medicine.

  There are currently two trials under way. The first, a three-year study to attempt to measure the therapeutic effects of cannabis in people with multiple sclerosis, is due to report early in 2004. This study has received £950,000 from the Medical Research Council.

  The second trial is being managed by GW Pharmaceuticals Ltd. with the aim of developing a cannabis-based medicine. Initial findings from this trial are expected later this year.

  Adoption
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans the Government have to review their guidelines on adoption in respect of(a) the age of the prospective adopter and (b) the ethnicity or cultural background of the prospective adopter. [134897]

  Mr. Hutton
  We made clear in Local Authority Circular (98)20, copies of which are available in the Library, that although a child's ethnic origin, culture, language and religion are significant factors to be taken into account when adoption agencies are considering the most appropriate placement for a child, it is unacceptable for a child to be denied loving adoptive parents solely on the grounds that the child and adopters do not share the same racial or cultural background.

  Although age is one consideration among many that is taken into account in assessing the suitability of prospective adopters, the guidance also makes it clear that there should be no upper age restriction to people applying to become adoptive parents. It is clear that for far too long children drift in the care system when suitable adopters are available.

  In February, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced a review of adoption services. In July, the report by the Performance and Innovation Unit was published for consultation. We will be publishing a White Paper on adoption before the end of the year. In addition, as part of our commitment to modernising services, we will be publishing, for consultation, a draft set of evidence-based national standards for adoption.

  Chlorpromazine
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research he has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated relating to the side effects of chlorpromazine. [134395]

  Ms Stuart
  The Medicines Control Agency (MCA) and the expert advisory committee, the Committee on Safety of Medicines (CSM), have evaluated adverse reactions associated with chlorpromazine including involuntary movement disorders, abnormalities of the blood, sedation, muscle rigidity and the sensitivity of patients with underlying dementia to side effects. The MCA/CSM published advice on these reactions in the bulletin 598W
  "Current Problems in Pharmacovigilance", which is received by all registered medical practitioners, in April 1979 September 1986, November 1993, November 1994, November 1995 and March 1996.

  The MCA continuously monitors the safety of chlorpromazine, as with all medicines, from the United Kingdom spontaneous reporting scheme (the Yellow Card Scheme), and other sources including the published medical literature. A recently published study' suggesting an increased risk of first-time idiopathic venous thromboembolism in current users of antipsychotics including chlorpromazine compared with non-users, is currently under evaluation.

  The Department has also funded research to the value of £1.4 million into antipsychotic drugs, including chlorpromazine. One project is a multi-centre randomised controlled trial in severe schizophrenia. This will compare conventional anti-psychotics with newer agents to assess relative effectiveness and differences in quality of life. A second project is a systematic review of comparative studies of depot and oral antipsychotics: quality of life, patient satisfaction and adverse effects will be among the outcomes studied.
  1Antipsychotic drug use and risk of first-time idiopathic venous thromboembolism: a case control study. Zornberg GL, Jick H. Lancet 2000;356:1219–23.

  Doctors (Overseas Recruitment)
  Sir Nicholas Lyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his policy in relation to the recruitment of doctors from abroad; to what extent he proposes to seek to recruit consultants from abroad; whether the established regulations for the appointment of consultant will apply; and what financial incentives will be offered to such recruits from abroad to accept posts within the National Health Service. [135084]

  Mr. Denham
  International recruitment has made a valuable contribution to the National Health Service throughout its history, and is a two-way process in view of the increasing globalisation of the world's medical work force.

  In the short term, until we benefit from the increased investment in training, we will be increasing the recruitment of trained doctors from abroad. The consultant appointment regulations will apply to all appointments to that grade.

  The reward package offered to doctors from abroad will be consistent with that offered to United Kingdom trained doctors.

  NHS Services (Complaints)
  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many complaints have been made about NHS services from residents of the Borough of Kingston upon Thames in each year from 1992 to 2000. [135779]

  Ms Stuart
  Information on complaints about the National Health Service is not collated in the format requested. Data are compiled by the health authority or NHS trust rather than by complainant's district of residence. Information on written complaints in England is published in, "Handling Complaints: Monitoring the NHS Complaints Procedures", copies of which are
  599W
  available in the Library. The latest figures are for 1998–99. The data held prior to 1996–97 are not directly comparable.

  NHS General Practitioners
  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many practising NHS GPs there were per head of population in each constituency in each year between 1987 and 1999; [135782]

  (2) what the average number of patients registered with an NHS GP practice was in each constituency in each year between 1987 and 1999. [135784]

  Mr. Denham
  Statistics collected in the Department are largely by health authority, local authority or National Health Service trust, reflecting local lines of responsibility and accountability. The Department publishes a wide range of detail at these levels. Comprehensive information at constituency level could be collected and published only at disproportionate cost.

  Unrestricted Principals and Equivalents (UPEs)1 per 10,000, patients of UPEs and residential population2 by health authority— 1996 to 19983

  UPEs per 10,000 pop

  Average list size

  1987–19954

  1996

  5.5

  1,885

  1997

  5.5

  1,819

  1998

  5.5

  1,807

  1999

  5.5

  1,845

  1UPEs include Unrestricted Principals, PMS Contracted GPs and PMS Salaried GPs

  2ONS mid year population estimates

  3General Medical Practitioner data as at 1 October each year

  4Comparative detailed data is not available before 1996

  Notes:

  1. Based on ONS mid year population estimates

  2. Based on patients of UPEs

  3. Health authority level data is available in the annual "General and Personal Medical Services Statistics"

  Source:

  Department of Health General & Personal Medical Services Statistics & ONS population census

  Larval Therapy
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which conventional treatments have been tested in the West Cumberland hospital study comparing larval therapy to modern conventional therapy; what conclusions the study has reached concerning the cost efficiency of(a) conventional treatment and (b) larval therapy; and if he will make a statement. [135812]

  Mr. Denham
  The conventional treatment tested in the West Cumberland Hospital study comparing larval therapy to modern conventional therapy was standard Hydrogel dressings (Intrasite gel: Smith and Nephew Medical Ltd.). The study found that the median cost of the cases using conventional treatment was £136.23 whereas the median cost of the cases using larval therapy was £78.64.

  NHS Staff
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans the Government have to improve working conditions and morale of staff of the NHS; and if he will make a statement. [135703]
  600W
  Mr. Denham
  We are committed to improving the working conditions and moral of staff in the National Health Service by becoming a better employer. We recognise that a well motivated work force, able to manage a healthy work-life balance and fairly rewarded, will provide a better service to patients. For the last two years pay awards recommended by the independent review bodies have been implemented in full. Since 1997 nurses have had a 15 per cent. pay rise.

  On 4 October, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State published the human resources performance framework which will measure for the first time the way in which NHS employers treat their staff, and which will link their performance to the resources they receive. An integral part of the framework is the new improving working lives standard. This introduces a kite-marking system for NHS employers to demonstrate how they are improving the working lives of all their staff. By April 2003, all NHS employers are expected to be accredited as putting the IWL standard into practice.

  In September this year each NHS trust received £25,000 to improve the working environment for staff. A further £30 million has been allocated to expand child care provisions so that by 2004 there will be provision for around 100 on-site nurseries. An additional £6 million in 2001–02, rising to £8 million in 2003–04, is being invested to extend occupational health services for staff in the NHS. An extra £140 million is being invested by 2003–04 in personal development and training, to provide access to learning for all NHS staff. There were 10,000 more nurses in September 1999 than in September 1997, indicating that moral is improving.

  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will introduce the market forces supplement for NHS staff; and how it will be allocated. [135844]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 1 November 2000]The National Health Service Plan set out our plans to invest in staff working in the National Health Service. This includes the introduction of a new market forces supplement to top up the pay of staff in areas where there are labour market shortages. We will be publishing our proposals in due course.

  Down's Syndrome
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on access to NHS services by people with Down's syndrome. [135885]

  Mr. Hutton
  The National Health Service Plan makes clear our commitment to challenging discrimination in the NHS on any grounds, including disability. Anyone who has a learning disability, including everyone who has Down's syndrome, has the same rights of access to NHS services to NHS services as everyone else. This fundamental principle will be re-inforced in our learning disability strategy which is to be published as a White Paper in the early months of next year.

  Whistleblowers
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health 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

  601W
  convention or a professional code, (c) may involve possible maladministration and (d) are otherwise inconsistent with the civil service code. [135460]

  Ms Stuart
  The Department is committed to achieving the highest possible standards of service and ethical standards in public life in all of its practices. The civil service code enables all civil servants to report their concerns to, among others, their senior manager, the Departmental security officer or the Civil Service Commissioners. In addition the Department will shortly introduce a "whistleblowing" policy covering disclosures by staff of malpractice, illegal acts or serious omissions of duty at work. The policy has been developed in line with the best practice advised by the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998. It enables staff to raise—at an early stage and in the right way—any concerns they may have about activities within the Department.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the hon. Member for Walsall, North will receive a reply to his letter of 18 September regarding a constituent (reference POH(6)5608/54). [135457]

  Ms Stuart
  [holding answer 30 October 2000]A reply to my hon. Friend's letter was sent on 31 October.

  Nurses (Overseas Recruitment)
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance his Department has issued regarding the recruitment of nurses from overseas; and if he will make a statement. [135835]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 31 October 2000]The Department published guidance on international nursing recruitment in November 1999. The guidance stresses that international recruitment should be valued and has made a valuable contribution to the National Health Service throughout its history; is a two-way process in view of the increasing globalisation of the world's nursing work force; and is viable only when its professional and service value can be clearly demonstrated, and if the recruit's placement in the NHS will have no negative impact upon their home healthcare system.

  Each NHS region is appointing a team to lead on international recruitment. This activity will be managed across the entire region to ensure that best practice is followed and promoted. They will also promote collaboration between trusts, to achieve efficient, ethical international recruitment.

  Children's Society
  Mr. Hilary Benn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions he has had with the Children's Society about the Safe House in Leeds; and if he will make a statement. [136096]

  Mr. Hutton
  We would like to pay tribute to the Children's Society and all those involved over the years in running the Leeds Safe House. We are pleased to see that, although the refuge has closed, the Society will continue to help young runaways in Leeds through its work in the Leeds Safe on the Streets network.
  602W
  The Children's Society and the Department are currently in discussions about developing other more flexible ways of meeting the needs of children and young people who run away from home and we are keen to see these develop for all such children across the country.

  Medical Training
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what programmes in undergraduate medical training there are which ensure that doctors study both educational and clinical psychology. [136094]

  Mr. Denham
  Individual university medical schools determine their own undergraduate medical curricula in the light of the recommendations from the General Medical Council's (GMC) Education Committee, which has the statutory responsibility to determine the extent of knowledge and skill required for the granting of primary medical qualifications in the United Kingdom. The Committee's most recent recommendations were published in the 1993 report "Tomorrow's Doctors".

  University medical schools are in the process of implementing the recommendations contained in the report and the GMC is monitoring progress.

  Diagnostic and Treatment Centres
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health where the newly proposed diagnostic and treatment centres will be located; and if he will make a statement. [135845]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 1 November 2000]No decisions have been made on the location of the diagnostic and treatment centres announced in The NHS Plan. We are working with NHS Executive Regional Offices to determine where these new centres will be located, and will announce details when this process is complete.

  Pharmacists
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has for funding pharmacists to deliver medicines to the patient's door. [135846]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 1 November 2000]"Pharmacy in the Future—Implementing the National Health Service Plan", which was published on 12 September, sets out our programme for pharmacy in the National Health Service; copies are available in the Library. We shall be discussing with the Pharmaceutical Services Negotiating Committee changes in the terms of service and distribution of the global sum for community pharmacy to establish minimum standards and promote and reward high-quality services. When parliamentary time permits, we will introduce legislation to allow a new form of agreement between the NHS, pharmacists and pharmacy owners.

  Expenditure
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will set out the gross expenditure on family
  603W
  health services, by service, for each year since 1979–80, in the same format as figure 11.12 of Cm 4603, "The Government's Expenditure Plans 2000–01"; [136023]

  (2) what was the gross expenditure on general medical services, as a percentage of gross family health services expenditure, in each year since 1979–80; [136022]

  (3) what percentage of gross NHS expenditure was represented by gross general medical services expenditure in each year since 1979–80. [136024]

  Family health services gross expenditure, 1989–90 to 1998–99

  £ million

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  % real terms growth 1989–90 to 1998–99

  Drugs non-discretionary

  1,952

  2,091

  2,210

  2,356

  2,352

  2,243

  2,210

  2,014

  2,171

  1,837

  1—

  Drugs discretionary

  0

  0

  125

  295

  628

  1,009

  1,296

  1,794

  1,936

  2,519

  1—

  Drugs Total

  1,952

  2,091

  2,335

  2,651

  2,980

  3,252

  3,506

  3,808

  4,107

  4,356

  81.6

  General Medical Services

  Non-discretionary

  1,569

  1,484

  1,656

  1,768

  1,840

  1,902

  1,965

  2,073

  2,198

  2,243

  16.3

  Discretionary

  0

  464

  600

  686

  715

  723

  754

  800

  835

  878

  54.0

  Total General Medical Services discretionary and non-discretionary

  1,569

  1,948

  2,256

  2,454

  2,555

  2,625

  2,719

  2,873

  3,033

  3,121

  61.9

  PMS2

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  37

  1—

  General Dental Services

  948

  1,040

  1,246

  1,306

  1,222

  1,279

  1,290

  1,323

  1,348

  1,438

  23.4

  PDS2

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  4

  1—

  Dispensing Costs

  518

  561

  603

  658

  677

  679

  706

  746

  768

  781

  22.7

  General Ophthalmic Services

  108

  111

  141

  172

  192

  213

  223

  237

  241

  240

  80.8

  Total FHS spend

  5,095

  5,751

  6,581

  7,241

  7,626

  8,048

  8,444

  8,987

  9,497

  9,977

  59.4

  Gross GMS as a percentage of Gross FHS

  30.8

  33.9

  34.3

  33.9

  33.5

  32.6

  32.2

  32.0

  31.9

  31.3

  Total NHS expenditure (Gross)

  21,132

  23,654

  26,785

  29,371

  31,075

  32,890

  34,430

  35,729

  37,793

  39,884

  53.6

  Total GMS as a percentage of gross NHS

  7.4

  8.2

  8.4

  8.4

  8.2

  8.0

  7.9

  8.0

  8.0

  7.8

  1n/a

  2Discretionary

  Notes:

  1. Data are taken from the Published Departmental Report for GMS data.

  2. Personal Medical Services (PMS) and Personal Dental Services(PDS) schemes are Primary Care Act pilots designed to test locally managed approaches to the delivery of primary care. PDS and PMS expenditure figures, although not allocations. exclude any related capital investment by NHS trusts. PDS expenditure figures are also gross of patient charge income whereas allocations are net of charges.

  3. From 1993–94 onwards, gross HCHS revenue, gross NHS revenue and NHS total gross expenditure is inflated because of the interest dividends paid by NHS Trusts.

  4. Please note that Discretionary GMS data were not available in 1998–99 as they did not start until 1990–91.

  Trafford General Hospital Mortuary
  .Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the condition of the mortuary of Trafford General Hospital. [136065]

  Mr. Denham
  An upgrade of the current mortuary facilities at Trafford General Hospital took place in 1998 so that it would meet the necessary minimum standards. Trafford Healthcare National Health Service Trust is now in the process of developing a business case for a new mortuary and this has the support of the north-west regional office of the NHS Executive.

  Bed-blocking (Kent)
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many bed days were lost through bed-blocking at(a) the
  604W
  .Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 1 November 2000)The information requested is shown in the table for the years 1989–90 to 1998–99.

  Expenditure figures from 1979–80 to 1997–98 are not held in the format requested.

  It is also not possible to provide expenditure figures for 1999–2000 as the general medical services discretionary element became part of the unified allocation to health authorities.

  Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother Hospital, Margate, (b) the William Harvey Hospital, Ashford and (c) the Kent and Canterbury Hospital during the past 26 weeks; and if he will make a statement. [136078]

  Mr. Denham
  The information is not available in the form requested. I refer the hon. Member to the East Kent Health Authority, which may have the information he requests.

  Elective Surgery (Kent)
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many appointments for elective surgery were postponed or cancelled at(a) the Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother Hospital, Margate, (b) the William Harvey Hospital, Ashford and (c) the Kent and Canterbury Hospital during the past 26 weeks. [136077]
  605W
  Mr. Denham
  This information is not collected in the form requested.

  Occupational Therapists
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he plans to take to improve the recruitment and retention of occupational therapists in the NHS. [122908]

  Mr. Denham
  The national recruitment, retention and vacancy survey published September 1999 gave us the latest authoritative data on staff vacancies from 98 per cent. of National Health Service trusts. They show that only 1.9 per cent. of occupational therapy posts have been vacant for three months or more (in England). The Government are ensuring that effective recruitment and retention policies are in place to make the best use of trained staff and that training levels are sufficient to get a better match between supply and demand.

  We are taking a number of steps which will help to address the issue of recruitment and retention of occupational therapists. These include the publication of the framework for the management of human resources for the whole of the NHS, "Working Together: securing a quality workforce for the NHS", which sets targets for local employers to improve recruitment and retention year on year. We have issued guidance to the service on improving working lives and we will shortly be issuing guidance on lifelong learning and continuing professional development.

  Debt written off

  Debt injected

  Industry

  Year

  £million

  Type of Debt

  Year

  £ million

  British Steel

  1980–81

  509.3

  National Loans Fund

  —

  —

  British Aerospace

  1980–81

  60

  Public Dividend Capital

  —

  —

  National Freight Corporation1

  1980–81

  100

  National Loans Fund

  —

  —

  British Airways

  1980–81

  160

  Public Dividend Capital

  —

  —

  British Transport Docks Board1

  1982–83

  81.3

  National Loans Fund

  1982–83

  25

  British Telecommunications

  1984–85

  2,789.9

  National Loans Fund

  1984–85

  3,500

  British Gas

  —

  —

  —

  1986–87

  2,500

  BAA

  1986–87

  43.5

  National Loans Fund

  —

  —

  British Steel

  1988–89

  500

  Public Dividend Capital

  —

  —

  British Steel

  1988–89

  3,480

  Borrowing under Iron and Steel Act 1982

  —

  —

  Harland and Wolff

  1989–90

  422.5

  Assistance under Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries (Northern Ireland) Order 1979

  —

  —

  Short Brothers

  1989–90

  390

  Loan by DED

  —

  —

  Water companies

  1989–90

  4,973.3

  National Loans Fund

  1989–90

  72.9

  Water companies

  1989–90

  55

  Public Works Loan Board

  —

  —

  Electricity (England and Wales)

  —

  —

  —

  1990–91

  3,583

  Electricity (Scotland)3

  1991–92

  1,043.6

  National Loans Fund

  1991–92

  625.9

  NTL

  —

  —

  —

  1991–92

  22

  Northern Ireland Electricity

  —

  —

  —

  1993–94

  70.3

  Belfast Airport

  —

  —

  —

  1994–95

  15.2

  British Coal

  1994–95

  1,633.4

  Voted Loans

  —

  —

  Railtrack

  1995–96

  1,229

  National Loans Fund

  1996–97

  585

  Total

  17.470.8

  10,999.3

  1Privatised as National Freight Consortium (now NFC).

  2Privatised as Associated British Ports Holdings.

  3Prior to privatisation, National Loans Fund Debt due to the South of Scotland Electricity Board nuclear programme of £1,368.4 million was transferred to Scottish Nuclear Ltd. and subsequently written off.

  4In the case of the privatisation of British Energy, on 5 June 1996, it was agreed that, of the £1,745 million of debt to Government created as the result of the reorganisation of the nuclear power generating industry prior to the privatisation, £600 million would be converted into a new debt owed to Government, £700 million converted into 700 million shares with a face value of £1 and £445 million would be written off.

  606W
  We are also modernising services and modernising employment practice in the NHS: developing more supportive, flexible and family friendly working practices; extending and improving investment in lifelong learning and professional development; tackling violence and racism in the workplace; involving staff in the way services are delivered and in the changes and developments that affect their working lives.

  We have accepted in full the pay increases recommended by the Pay Review Body for Nursing Staff, Midwives, Health Visitors and Professions Allied to Medicine (including occupational therapist) for 2000–01. The review body has recommended an across-the-board increase of 3.4 per cent. for 2000–01. Experienced staff will receive total increases of up to 8.4 per cent.

TREASURY

  Debt Write-offs (Privatised Industry)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the amount of debt written off by the Government for each industry privatised since 1980. [135906]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The table shows the amount of debt written off for each industry privatised since 1980. Where relevant the table also shows the type of debt concerned and the amount of debt injected.

  fuel Taxes
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much fuel duty has derived from the taxation of alternative fuels; and what percentage this represents of the total tax on road fuel, since the most recent Budget. [135651]

  Mr. Timms
  The receipts of excise duty from 'gas for use as road fuel' between April and September 2000 are £1.6 million. This represents 0.01 per cent. of the total excise receipts for road fuels.

  This represents a growth of over 160 per cent. on receipts from the similar period last year.

  Company Cars
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what progress has been made on the review of the taxation of company cars.[135898]

  Mr. Timms
  A major reform of company car tax, to be implemented from April 2002, was announced by the Chancellor in the 1999 Budget, following a review of the system in the light of criticism of its inherent perverse incentives for some company car users to drive extra, unnecessary business miles. The main details of how the system will work in practice were announced in a Budget 2000 press release (Rev6)—'Protecting the environment: Reform of company car taxation' as legislated for the Finance Act 2000.

  Service Delivery Agreements
  Mr. Ian Stewart
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he will publish the White Paper 'Service Delivery Agreements: A Guide'; and when Departments will publish their own service delivery agreements. [136931]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  I will be presenting "Service Delivery Agreements: A Guide" (Cm4915) to the House and publishing it tomorrow. Departments will be publishing their own Service Delivery Agreements on departmental websites on the same day, and a full hard copy set will be placed in the Library of the House for information.

  Banking Services
  Ms Dari Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what action he is taking to ensure that banking services are available to all.
  [133907]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd (Mr. Ruane) on 20 July 2000, Official Report, column 311W.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Pan-European Political Parties
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the policy of Her Majesty's Government relating to the proposal of the Commission and Parliament of the European Union for an amendment to be made to Article 192 of the Community Treaty to require the 608W
  European Council to lay down a statute of conditions governing the recognition, rules, and funding of pan-European political parties. [135402]

  Mr. Vaz
  I have been asked to reply.

  European political parties already exist and are recognised in the EC Treaty. The proposal for a legal base to allow the establishment of a statute to regulate these parties is intended to ensure the transparency of their funding. We strongly support this aim.

  Rural Policing
  Mr. Leslie
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what improvements in rural policing will result from the £15 million announced on 15 June 2000,Official Report, column 714W. [136777]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Chief officers will target the money as they see fit, keeping their local communities informed of where improvements can be expected.

  Guidance to be issued under the Local Government Act 1999 will require those police authorities who were given a share of the money to provide a clear account in their Best Value Performance Plans. For the previous year they will set out what improvement they sought with the money, which Best Value Performance Indicators (BVPIs) were used to measure their performance, and how they performed. For the forthcoming year, they will detail what improvement they seek and which BVPIs will be used to measure that. Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary will inspect forces on the basis of that statement.

  European Charter of Fundamental Rights
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if Article 5 of the draft European Charter of Fundamental Rights would preclude(a) paid servitude and (b) football transfer fees; and if he will make a statement. [134894]

  Mr. Vaz
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Charter will be a political declaration of rights, freedoms and principles and is not legally binding.

  Article 5.1 and 5.2 correspond to Article 4.1 and 4.2 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) today, columns 555–56W.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the relationship between Article 20 of the draft European Charter of Fundamental Rights and diplomatic immunity. [134818]

  Mr. Vaz
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Charter will be a political declaration of rights, freedoms and principles and is not legally binding.

  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) today, columns 555–56W.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the consequences of Article 7 of the draft European Charter of Fundamental Rights for(a) the media and (b) surveillance of criminals. [134793]
  609W
  Mr. Vaz
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Charter will be a political declaration of rights, freedoms and principles and is not legally binding.

  Article 7 corresponds to Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) today, columns 555–56W.

  Prisons (Health Care Services)
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent assessment he has made of the arrangements for the delivery of health care services in prisons in England. [134384]

  Mr. Boateng
  A comprehensive assessment of the arrangements for delivering health care services in prisons was conducted prior to the publication of "The Future Organisation of Prison Health Care" in March 1999. The programme of reform set out in that report requires each prison and health authority jointly to review the health needs of the local prison population and to develop joint improvement plans by the end of March 2001.

  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to make available specific ring-fenced funds for health-related service improvements in prisons in England. [134387]

  Mr. Boateng
  Prison Service funds are not generally ring-fenced for particular purposes. The reform and improvement of prison health care is a high priority for the Government and this will be reflected in business plans and financial allocations within the Prison Service for 2001–04. Provisional plans are for significant additional investment in health care over this period, including up to £35 million to rebuild or refurbish those prison health care centres in England and Wales that most badly need it.

  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the work programmes are of(a) the prisons task force and (b) the prisons health policy unit; and what plans he has to report on their progress. [134388]

  Mr. Boateng
  The joint work programme of the prison health policy unit and the prison health task force was set out in the "Prison Health Handbook", which was published in September 2000. Copies have been placed in the Library. These will publish a joint annual report on their work.

  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will arrange for the NHS to be responsible for health care services in prisons in England. [134385]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Government's policy on responsibilities for prison health care was set out in the report "The Future Organisation of Prison Health Care", published in March 1999. That document sets out the rationale for an approach based on a partnership between the Prison Service and the NHS as the best way of meeting the health care needs of prisoners.

  Illegal Immigrants
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement about the fine imposed on a haulier at Dover who voluntarily reported his discovery of illegal immigrants in his lorry. [135022]

  Mrs. Roche
  Without more detail I am not sure to which haulier the hon. Member is referring. Any haulier who suspects that persons are concealed in their vehicle should report the matter immediately to the authorities, whether in the United Kingdom or abroad. To do otherwise may give rise to suspicion that they are deliberately involved in facilitating the illegal entry of such persons. If a haulier has taken proper measures to secure his vehicle in accordance with the Code of Practice for Vehicles, he will have grounds for establishing a defence against the Civil Penalty that may be imposed. Where a penalty is imposed there are thirty days in which to lodge a notice objecting to liability.

  British Stasi Agents
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) in what circumstances it is the Government's policy to reveal the identity of British Stasi agents in the absence of a decision to prosecute them; [135005]

  (2) for what reason no files have been passed to the Crown Prosecution Service by the police or the security service concerning the possible prosecution of British Stasi agents; [135006]

  (3) if it is his policy not to expose British Stasi agents if they provided (a) unclassified personal information to their controllers, (b) unclassified political information to their controllers or (c) classified information to their controllers. [135027]

  Mr. Straw
  I refer the hon. Member to the statement I made on 21 October 1999, Official Report, columns 587–99, and the one that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department made on 21 December 1999, Official Report, columns 182–229WH, concerning the cases involving the East German Stasi.

  Home Detention Curfew Scheme
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners have breached one or more conditions of their release under the Home Detention Curfew Scheme since its inception. [134768]

  Mr. Boateng
  Of the 26,898 prisoners placed on the Home Detention Curfew scheme by 30 September 2000, 1,756 have been reported as having breached one or more of the conditions of their release while subject to the Home Detention Curfew scheme.

  This figure includes prisoners who are reported:
  as having breached the conditions of the curfew (section 38A(1)(a) of the Criminal Justice Act 1991);
  as no longer able to be electronically monitored (section 38A(1)(b) of the Criminal Justice Act 1991):

  611W
  as presenting a risk of serious harm to the public (section 38A(1)(c) of the Criminal Justice Act 1991); and
  as having committed an offence or breached any other requirement of probation supervision (section 39 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991). Curfewees who are charged with new offences may also be recalled on any of the preceding grounds depending on the circumstances of the case.

  Prisoners whose current sentence is in respect of an offence committed before 1 January 1999 are not liable to be recalled under section 39 of the Act. In such cases, where the curfewee has breached the requirements of probation supervision or where they have committed a further offence and it has not been possible to revoke their licence under section 38A of the Act, the breach may be referred to the courts under section 38(1) of the Act. The total number of such cases referred to the courts is not held centrally.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many and what criminal offences have been committed by prisoners released under the home detention curfew scheme. [134773]

  Mr. Boateng
  Of the 26,898 prisoners placed on the Home Detention Curfew (HDC) scheme by 30 September 2000, 555 are known by the Prison Service to have been cautioned or convicted of a further offence committed while on HDC or are pending prosecution for such an offence. The total number of offences committed by these prisoners is 1,003. A breakdown of the offences is contained in the given table.

  Breakdown of all cases involving further offences which led to

  conviction, cautions or where prosecutions are pending

  28 January 1999 to 30 September 2000

  Offence

  Number

  Total

  1,003

  Manslaughter

  0

  Other homicide and attempted homicide

  Attempted murder

  0

  Making threats to kill

  3

  Conspire, aid, incite murder

  0

  Death by reckless driving

  0

  Wounding

  Wounding (inflicting GBH)

  6

  Assault occasioning ABH

  22

  Assault with intent to cause GBH

  0

  Assaults

  Assault with intent to resist arrest

  1

  Other assault

  32

  Obstruct/resist constable

  0

  Assault on police officer

  24

  Cruelty to children

  0

  Other violence against the person

  Cause explosion, place explosive

  0

  Possess firearms with intent

  1

  Possess offensive weapon

  9

  Other violence against the person

  8

  Sexual Offences

  Rape

  2

  Buggery

  0

  Indecent assault

  1

  Unlawful sexual intercourse

  0

  612W

  Breakdown of all cases involving further offences which led to

  conviction, cautions or where prosecutions are pending

  28 January 1999 to 30 September 2000

  Offence

  Number

  Abduction

  0

  Bigamy

  0

  Burglary

  42

  Robbery

  17

  Taking and driving away

  13

  Other theft

  175

  Handling stolen goods

  29

  Fraud

  44

  Forgery

  4

  Drugs offences

  Production

  0

  Supply

  14

  Possession with intent

  7

  Possession

  83

  Unlawful import/export

  1

  Other drugs offences

  5

  Arson

  1

  Criminal damage

  43

  In charge or driving under the influence of drink or drugs

  42

  Reckless driving

  7

  Other motoring offences

  195

  Drunkenness

  1

  Blackmail

  0

  Kidnapping

  3

  Affray

  14

  Violent disorder

  23

  Perjury/libel/pervert the course of justice

  6

  Threat/disorderly behaviour

  6

  Breach of Court Order

  38

  Other offences

  68

  Offence not recorded

  13

  Sentencing Policy
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if, in his review of sentencing policy, extending the right of appeal against lenient sentences to include the offence of the sale of drugs to children will be considered. [134532]

  Mr. Boateng
  Rights of appeal, whether by the prosecution or the defence, are not within the terms of reference of the current Review of the Sentencing Framework.

  However, on 24 July my hon. Friend the Minister of State announced an extension of the Attorney-General's powers to refer unduly lenient sentences to the Court of Appeal for review. From 21 August 2000, the Attorney-General has been able to refer sentences imposed for drug trafficking offences, including the offence of supplying a controlled drug. There is no separate offence of supplying drugs to children.

  R v. CICA ex parte Embling
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement concerning the implications of Rv. CICA ex parte Embling. [134332]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority and the Criminal Injuries Compensation Appeals Panel will naturally take account of the judgment in making determinations under the tariff-based criminal injuries compensation scheme. The Government will
  613W
  consider whether greater clarification of the terms "full recovery" and "continuing disability" would be helpful in any future amendment of the scheme and its accompanying tariff of injuries.

  Money Laundering
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures are presently under discussion at EU level for combating money laundering through(a) the Internet and (b) electronic currency transfers. [134810]

  Mrs. Roche
  A number of measures have been taken or are currently under consideration in this area.

  The revision of the 1991 Money Laundering Directive in the European Union, which has recently received political agreement within the Council, is designed to ensure that all member states have sufficiently robust national laws and regulations to combat the increasingly sophisticated methods used in money laundering. As such it includes specific provisions to ensure that there is adequate identification of customers where no face-to-face contact between bank staff and customer occurs, such as through Internet banking accounts. Implementation will require the development of specific regulations and guidelines in the United Kingdom, applied to all those involved in financial transactions. This is currently being considered. It has been agreed that three years after the adoption of the Directive an examination will be undertaken to consider identification measures for clients involved in non-face-to-face transactions and the possible implications for electronic commerce.

  In a separate measure, the European Union has prepared a comprehensive strategy for dealing with organised crime in a paper entitled "The Prevention and Control of Organised Crime: A European Union Strategy for the beginning of the new Millennium". The measures proposed in that document, and to be taken forward in European Union Working Groups, include a specific recommendation to address the issue of money laundering on the Internet and via electronic money products.

  At the joint Council of European Union Justice and Finance Ministers on 17 October, it was agreed that a range of measures be undertaken against financial crime, with particular attention to be given to measures to facilitate the fight against the abuse of new information and communications, especially the Internet and electronic transfer of money.

  Immigration and Nationality Directorate
  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will assess the benefits of introducing a fast-track procedure at the Immigration and Nationality Directorate for processing applications from non-EU foreign nationals for leave to remain in the UK when they are medically qualified people filling a vacancy for a doctor or nurse within the NHS. [135531]

  Mrs. Roche
  From 2 May, the Immigration and Nationality Directorate and the Department for Education and Employment have revised procedures for handling all 614W
  applications for leave to remain for the purpose of employment including those from medically qualified persons seeking employment within the NHS. This has enabled such applications to be completed within 2–3 weeks instead of three months or longer.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum seekers the UK(a) returned and (b) accepted in October 1999, (ii) November 1999, (iii) December 1999, (iv) January 2000, (v) February 2000, (vi) March 2000, (vii) April 2000, (viii) May 2000, (ix) June 2000 and (x) July 2000. [136091]

  Mrs. Roche
  The information requested can be found in the table. We have interpreted "returned" to mean unsuccessful asylum seekers removed under port and enforcement processes, and "accepted" to mean those asylum seekers granted refugee status or refused asylum but given exceptional leave to remain.

  Asylum seekers the UK returned and accepted—October 1999 to

  July 20001

  2.3Returned

  4Accepted

  1999

  October

  675

  465

  November

  635

  450

  December

  645

  220

  2000

  January

  605

  350

  February

  735

  905

  March

  730

  1,815

  April

  765

  3,935

  May

  890

  3,945

  June

  725

  2,590

  July

  720

  1,690

  1All figures have been rounded to the nearest 5.

  3Figures relate to asylum seekers who have been removed under port and enforcement procedures.

  3Figures include voluntary departures following enforcement action but excludes all other voluntary departures.

  4Includes persons seeking asylum who have been granted asylum or refused asylum but given ELR.

  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list, for asylum cases considered under normal procedures, for(a) each of the last 10 calendar years for which figures are available and (b) each month in 2000 for which figures are available, (i) the number of asylum claims refused, broken down by major type of refusal and (ii) the number of asylum claims refused in each type, expressed as a proportion of the total number of refusals. [136063]

  Mrs. Roche
  The information requested is given in the table.

  The latest information on asylum is available on the Home Office intemet site at http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/ rds/index.htm.
  615W

  Decisions1.2 on applications received for asylum in the United Kingdom, excluding dependants, by type, 1989 to 2000

  Number of principal applicants

  Decisions3

  Cases considered under normal procedures Refuals

  Total decisions

  Recognised as refugee and granted asylum4

  Not recognised as refugee but granted exceptional leave5

  Total refused

  Refused asylum and exceptional leave after full consideration

  Percentage

  Refused on safe third country grounds6

  Percentage

  Refused under para. 340 of Immigration Rules7

  Percentage

  1989

  6,955

  2,210

  3,860

  890

  890

  100

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1990

  4,025

  920

  2,400

  705

  705

  100

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1991

  6,075

  505

  2,190

  3,380

  2,325

  69

  270

  8

  785

  23

  1992

  34,900

  1,115

  15,325

  18,465

  2,675

  15

  595

  3

  15,195

  82

  1993

  23,405

  1,590

  11,125

  10,690

  4,705

  44

  745

  7

  5,240

  49

  1994

  20,990

  825

  3,660

  16,500

  12,655

  77

  865

  5

  2,985

  18

  1995

  27,005

  1,295

  4,410

  21,300

  17,705

  83

  1,515

  7

  2,085

  10

  1996

  38,960

  2,240

  5,055

  31,670

  28,040

  89

  1,615

  5

  2,015

  6

  1997

  36,045

  3,985

  3,115

  28,945

  22,780

  79

  2,550

  9

  3,615

  12

  1998

  31,570

  5,345

  3,910

  22,315

  17,465

  78

  1,855

  8

  2,995

  14

  19998

  33,720

  7,815

  2,465

  11,025

  8,110

  74

  1,830

  16

  1,085

  10

  20008

  January

  4,040

  180

  170

  2,390

  2,060

  86

  90

  4

  245

  10

  February

  7,865

  225

  680

  5,025

  3,965

  79

  145

  3

  920

  18

  March

  11,340

  590

  1,225

  7,570

  5,335

  70

  120

  2

  2,115

  28

  April

  9,650

  2,090

  1,845

  4,205

  2,930

  70

  110

  2

  1,165

  28

  May

  10,765

  2,015

  1,930

  5,520

  3,785

  69

  85

  1

  1,655

  30

  June

  1,135

  1,135

  1,455

  6,360

  4,125

  65

  100

  2

  2,135

  33

  July

  8,855

  710

  980

  6,345

  4,145

  65

  185

  3

  2,015

  32

  August

  9,770

  575

  925

  7,510

  4,230

  56

  155

  2

  3,125

  42

  September

  8,145

  375

  495

  6,710

  3,670

  55

  155

  2

  2,885

  43

  1Decisions do not necessarily relate to applications made in the same period

  2Figures rounded to the nearest 5

  3Information is of initial decisions, excluding the outcomes of appeals or other subsequent decisions

  4Excluding South East Asian refugees (pre 1996 only)

  5Where it would have been unreasonable or impracticable to seek to enforce return to country of origin

  6Figures from 1 January 1991 only. Prior to this, these refusals are included in the column 'Refused asylum and exceptional leave after full consideration'.

  7Paragraph 340 (paragraph 180F prior 1 October 1994 and paragraph 101 prior to July 1993) of the Immigration Rules, for failure to provide evidence to support the asylum claim within a reasonable period, including failture to respond to invitations to interview to establish identity: see explanatory note 6. Figures from 1 December 1991 only. Prior to this, these refusals are included in the column 'Refused asylum and exceptional leave after full consideration'.

  8Provisional

  Correspondence
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the reason for the delay by the Transfer Desk in his Department in transferring a letter regarding an immigration matter sent to him by the hon. Member for Hull, North on 5 September; what is the(a) average, (b) shortest and (c) greatest length of time taken for a letter to be transferred from his Department to another department; and if he will make a statement. [136026]

  Mr. Straw
  I apologise for the delay in dealing with the letter sent by the hon. Member. This was referred to the Immigration and Nationality Directorate immediately upon its receipt in the Home Office on 5 September. That Directorate subsequently advised that the correspondence would more appropriately be dealt with by the Joint Entry Clearance Unit. Unfortunately, the transfer to that Unit was not completed until 25 October. This was due to a recent and regrettable failure of our normal procedures, which we have since rectified.

  Prior to that failure, in the current year. of all the letters requiring transfer to other Government Departments, 54 per cent. were transferred within five working days;
  616W
  15 per cent. in 5 to 10 days; 13 per cent. in 10 to 20 days and 18 per cent. in over 20 days. The average was 13 days. I do not regard these periods as acceptable.

  Fuel Protests
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans have been drawn up by his task force to deal with a recurrence of fuel protests; how many times the task force has met; what its membership is; and if he will make a statement. [1360661

  Mr. Straw
  The Fuel Task Force has met four times so far. For further details I refer the right hon. Member to my reply to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Mr. Rammell) on 24 October 2000,Official Report, columns 115–16W, and to my statement today.

  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to deploy armed forces personnel in the event of a recurrence of fuel protests; what functions they will perform; what discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Defence concerning these plans; and if he will make a statement. [136062]
  617W
  Mr. Straw
  I refer the right hon. Member to my reply to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Mr. Rammell) on 24 October 2000,Official Report, columns 115–16W, to replies made by the Minister for the Armed Forces during MOD oral questions on 30 October, and to my statement today.

  R v. CICA ex parte Leatherland
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement concerning the implications of Rv. CICA ex parte Leatherland. [134331]

  Mr. Boateng
  Following the "Leatherland judgment", the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority will provide fuller explanations for their decisions in appropriate cases.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Fertiliser Prices
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what investigation his Department is undertaking into the recent rise in fertiliser prices. [135675]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 31 October 2000]I have been asked to reply.

  Although the Department of Trade and Industry monitors price levels for fertilisers, competition investigations are generally matters for the Office of Fair Trading (OFT). We are aware that the OFT has received complaints from farmers and their representatives about the prices of fertilisers in the UK. It is now awaiting submission from interested parties in order to determine whether a formal investigation is needed.

  BSE
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will publish the most recent figures for confirmed BSE cases broken down by year of birth. [136913]

  Ms Quin
  The position as at 30 October 2000 was as follows:

  Year of birth

  Total number of confirmed cases

  1974

  1

  1975

  0

  1976

  2

  1977

  10

  1978

  6

  1979

  41

  1980

  101

  1981

  261

  1982

  1,393

  1983

  4,461

  1984

  8,067

  1985

  11,065

  1986

  19,732

  1987

  36,869

  1988

  22,186

  1989

  12,645

  1990

  5,640

  1991

  4,575

  1992

  3,155

  618W

  Year of birth

  Total number of confirmed cases

  1993

  2,359

  1994

  1,206

  1995

  294

  1996

  13

  1997

  0

  1998

  0

  1999

  0

  Unknown

  43,345

  Total

  177,416

  1A third case of BSE in an animal born in 1996 was confirmed on 30 October 2000. The animal was born in May 1996, before the feed ban is considered to have been fully effective.

  Helen Jackson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action the Government are taking to prepare in the event that BSE is present in the United Kingdom sheep flock. [136933]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  The Government are adopting a precautionary approach and have for some time been operating a risk reduction strategy in this area in line with advice from SEAC and, more recently, the Food Standards Agency. This includes an ongoing research programme, including development of rapid screening methods, a national scrapie plan to eliminate scrapie from the national sheep flock (on which the Government initiated consultation in August) and the removal of the specified risk material from the food chain.

  Genotypically susceptible sheep dosed orally with infected brain material from cattle have developed BSE in scientific experiments. To date, however, BSE is not known to have occurred naturally in sheep, although this possibility is being checked by an ongoing research programme. The Government have in hand preparation of a contingency plan setting out actions that might be taken in different scenarios if in the future BSE is found to be present in sheep.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make arrangements to permit researchers seeking to provide a live test for bovine spongiform encephalopathy to have access to BSE diagnosed cattle. [135202]

  Ms Quin
  Arrangements are already in place to provide tissues and body fluids from cattle with BSE and cattle incubating the disease. The Veterinary Laboratories Agency (VLA) holds an archive of material from BSE-infected cattle. Scientists may apply directly to the TSE Office at the VLA to request samples of these tissues for use in research. Applications are approved by the TSE Research and Surveillance Unit in MAFF on the basis of the supplies available and the merit of the research. Scientists also need to show that they have the containment facilities available to perform the research and any necessary Home Office or import licences. Where sufficient supplies exist, reasonable requests will be granted and the tissues will be released once funding for the research is secured.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many of the research projects submitted to the 1996 open competition to find a diagnostic test for bovine spongiform encephalopathy produced a live test; and if he will make a statement. [135083]
  619W
  Ms Quin
  All of the projects funded as a result of the 1996 open competition have finished. None has resulted in the development of a test that can be used in the live animal. One project has resulted in a diagnostic test (called DELFIA) which has been submitted for validation by the EU Commission. Tests which pass the EU assessment may be used in national surveillance schemes. This test uses brain samples and so can be used only on dead animals. MAFF is now funding the assessment at Ames in the United States. The test is performed on blood samples and early results suggest that it can diagnose sheep with scrapie. MAFF is funding its further development as a diagnostic test in the live animal.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many of the unfunded proposals submitted in 1996 to the open competition for a diagnostic test for bovine spongiform encephalopathy were developed further; and if he will make a statement. [135078]

  Ms Quin
  To our knowledge, none of the unfunded proposals submitted under the 1996 open competition has resulted in a diagnostic test that can be used in the live animal. Swiss researchers who submitted a proposal under the competition have since developed a test called the Prionics test. However, this is not the same test as that submitted under the open competition. The Prionics test has been assessed by the EU Commission and has met their criteria. The test is currently being used in abattoir surveys of cattle in Switzerland and France. It is also used in the UK for the confirmation of clinical cases. This test uses brain tissue and cannot be used in the live animal.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many cases have been brought before the courts in each of the last five years relating to breaches of regulations relating to BSE. [135279]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 30 October 2000]There were no cases brought before the courts in the calendar year 1995 relating to breaches of regulations and orders relating to BSE. For the years 1996, 1997, 1998 and 1999 the figures are:

  Regulations

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  Fresh Meat (Hygiene and Inspection Regulations 1995

  3

  6

  16

  14

  Fresh Meat (Beef Control) No. 2 Regulations 1996

  0

  0

  1

  0

  Specified Bovine Offal Order 1995

  4

  1

  0

  0

  Specified Bovine Material Order 1996

  2

  2

  0

  0

  Specified Bovine Material Order 1997

  0

  0

  3

  0

  Specified Risk Material Regulations 1997

  0

  0

  7

  11

  Totals

  9

  9

  27

  25

  The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food ceased to have responsibility for bringing such cases before the courts at the beginning of April of this year.

  Additionally, there were 12 cases in 1998 and 84 cases in 1999 where applications were made to the magistrates for orders relating to the disposal of goods ineligible for export.

  Other authorities may also have been responsible for bringing cases before the courts.

  Cereals Producers
  Helen Jackson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make an application for agrimonetary compensation for cereals producers. [136932]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  In view of the very difficult trading conditions faced by UK arable farmers, the Government have decided to ask the EU Commission to draw down £34 million of the optional agrimonetary compensation available this year. This is in addition to the £57 million agrimonetary compensation already announced for this autumn. The extra money will provide valuable assistance to the arable sector at an exceptionally difficult time and follows a series of discussions with NFU leaders about the present problems of the arable sector.

  Organic Farming
  Ms Drown
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he plans to complete the review of the organic farming scheme. [136914]

  Mr. Morley
  The review of the organic farming scheme was launched in December 1999 and is now completed. I am grateful to all those individuals and organisations who contributed to it. A note summarising the outcome of the review has been placed in the Library.

  We have carefully considered the extent to which changes needed to be made to the scheme, which was heavily oversubscribed after it opened in April 1999 as a much improved replacement for the previous conversion aid arrangements. We believe that the priority is to reopen the organic farming scheme as quickly as possible, and accordingly we will begin accepting applications from 2 January 2001, with the first new payments being made in April 2001.

  The organic farming scheme is now part of the England rural development programme, and its future operation will be reviewed as part of the programme's mid-term evaluation. Many of the issues raised during this year's review will be relevant to that evaluation, and we will ensure that they are taken into account at that time.

  Against this background, one change is being made to the scheme when it reopens, subject to parliamentary approval. To facilitate applications, we propose to extend the deadline for applying for aid under the scheme after registration with an organic inspection body from three months to six months.

  Farmers (Support)
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list chronologically the actions taken since 1997 to provide support for farmers, by way of(a) extra cash, (b) policy initiatives and (c) promotion of agricultural products. [135393]

  Ms Quin
  The Government are committed to developing a framework within which the farming industry can continue to adapt to change. Since May 1997,
  621W
  we have introduced a number of policy measures, injecting £670 million (excluding agrimonetary aid) into the industry. These measures include:

  Early 1998

  We introduced several initiatives offering extra support to farmers, not all of which cost money, but which in total were worth more than £150 million to the industry. We:

  (i) paid £85 million in agrimonetary compensation to suckler cow and sheep producers at the beginning of the year;

  (ii) supported the introduction of an EU private storage aid scheme for pigmeat in the face of a fall of about 50 per cent. in the producer price of pigs. Additional action was taken in Northern Ireland;

  (iii) relaxed rules on the moisture content of cereals eligible for purchase intervention, in recognition of the difficulties caused to cereals producers by the wet summer;

  (iv) successfully lobbied the EC to grant two blocks of private storage aid for sheepmeat to help move lamb on the market. With effect from 8 October we removed the obstacles to the export of whole sheep carcases to France;

  (v) successfully negotiated the introduction of the Export Certified Herds Scheme in Northern Ireland;

  (vi) persuaded the EC to increase beef premium advances from 60 per cent. to 80 per cent.;

  (vii) met the costs for one year of Meat Hygiene Service enforcement of controls on specified risk material from cattle and sheep;

  (viii) met the start up and first year running costs of the new Cattle Tracing System.

  16 November 1998

  Announcement of a further aid package of £120 million, to provide:

  (i) extra agrimonetary compensation in the form of supplementary payments under the Suckler Cow Premium Scheme;

  (ii) increased payments under the Hill Livestock Compensatory Allowances Scheme (£60 million);

  (iii) extension of the Calf Processing Scheme until the end of the financial year.

  July 1999

  We successfully negotiated the introduction of the Date-Based Export Scheme for eligible British beef from 1 August.

  20 September 1999

  £150 million in new money announced:

  (i) £89 million in deferral of charges for inspections of specified risk material from cattle and sheep carcases and for cattle passports until 2002–03;

  (ii) £60 million in HLCA;

  (iii) £1 million in marketing support.

  28 October 1999

  Announcement of £15 million in new money:

  (i) £5 million in marketing support;

  (ii) £10 million for organic farming;

  Plus:

  (iii) Review of regulatory burdens in agriculture: three industry-led working groups reported in December 1999 on three priority areas identified by the industry: IACS and Inspections, Intervention and Meat Hygiene and Slaughterhouse Rules. Government accepted 98 of the 107 recommendations made. In addition a number of other
  622W
  issues identified for review have been considered in bilateral discussions between MAFF and industry. Implementation of the recommendations is a priority under the Action Plan for Farming.

  1 December 1999

  We pegged Meat Hygiene Charges: charges for 1999-2000 held at 1998–99 levels.

  7 December 1999

  Announced 'New Direction for Agriculture', including £1.6 billion (over seven years) England and Rural Development Plan. £300 million of which is new money. The Plan (now 'Programme') was approved by the European Commission's Star Committee in September 2000, and launched on 3 October 2000.

  1 February 2000

  Original labels on food: Following consultation, tough new guidance notes were issued on 1 February to industry and enforcement authorities. These make clear the need to ensure origin labels on food are unambiguous. They emphasise the need to pay special attention to the wording of origin and other declarations when the country of final processing of a food and the source of its main ingredients may be confused.

  30 March 2000

  Farming Summit: The Government launched the Action Plan for Farming, supported by £200 million. The Plan will provide financial relief to the hardest-hit sectors to help ease the process of change. Other commitments are directed towards rural development and diversification, better regulation, improved food chain co-operation, making the best of IT opportunities and continued commitment to CAP reform.

  The 2000 Spending Review provides a further £300 million to carry forward initiatives under the plan over the next three years.

  Agriculture (Diversification)
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what incentives are available to encourage diversification within the agricultural industry. [135236]

  Mr. Morley
  The England Rural Development Programme, launched on 3 October, contains a range of measures to encourage diversification within the agricultural industry in England. The Rural Enterprise Scheme will fund farm diversification projects. The Processing and Marketing Grant, Energy Crops Scheme, woodland grants and Vocational Training Scheme will also support diversification. The Ministry of Agriculture will also be producing a guide on farm diversification which will list these and other sources of funding and advice.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales will be able to provide details of grant schemes operating in Wales.

  North Sea Fishing
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food which countries are excluded from North Sea fishing grounds until 31 December 2002 through accession treaties; how many vessels will subsequently have right of access; and if he will make a statement on the consequences for UK vessel access. [135553]
  623W
  Mr. Morley
  Under the relevant accession treaties, all Finnish, Spanish and Portuguese fishing vessels are excluded from fishing in the North Sea until 31 December 2002. As things currently stand, they will be able to fish for non-quota stocks only thereafter. UK vessel access to the North Sea will not be affected.

  Knacker Industry
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many establishments were closed within the knacker industry in each of the last 10 years. [135142]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 30 October 2000]This information is not held centrally as it was only in April 1999, when the Animal By-Products Order 1999 (ABPO 1999) came into force, that the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food assumed responsibility for approving knackers yards. However, since 1 April 1999 four knackers yards have closed.

  Beef Exports
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the policy of the French Government towards UK beef exports. [135672]

  Ms Quin
  The French Government have made it clear that they do not intend to lift their ban on imports of UK beef. The European Commission is challenging this ban in the European Court of Justice.

  Farming Employees
  Mr. Ennis
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many(a) farmsteads and (b) workers employed in the farming industry there are in Barnsley, East and Mexborough. [136101]

  Ms Quin
  The Agricultural and Horticultural census indicated that there were 117 main holdings in the Barnsley, East and Mexborough constituency in June 1999, with a total labour force of 342.

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Oxford): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

Artificial Limb Services: Audit Commission Report
Baroness Lockwood Baroness Lockwood asked Her Majesty's Government:
What progress has been made on the Audit Commission's report Fully Equipped in relation to artificial limb services.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): My Lords, most of the report's recommendations on artificial limb services are for local health authorities and trusts to address. External auditors are now auditing their performance. We would expect the NHS to act on their findings.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that not very reassuring reply. Can he give an assurance that the needs of, and service to, the patient will in future be considered to be the prime criteria, rather than the lowest prices that are put forward? Can he further tell the House how he thinks that this might be achieved, given the decrease in expenditure on contracts for the supply of artificial limbs? That expenditure declined from £53.3 million in 1991–92 to £29.3 million in 1994–95. It then rose to £36 million in 1998–99. Does my noble friend agree that this still leaves a tremendous leeway which will need to be made up if the service is to be adequate?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, it is worth making the point to my noble friend that the Audit Commission reported on a number of services. It recorded that, in relation to artificial limb services, while there were instances of uneven services, as well as some problems, overall a considerable number of favourable comments were received from users of the service. I can assure my noble friend that the NHS Purchasing and Supply Agency is working with trusts, the industry and users to improve standards in future service contracts.
As regards the budget, I think that the total spend is around £65 million a year. The latest figures for 1998–99 show that £36 million reflected the cost of contracts awarded to private sector companies. The remainder of the budget comprised the costs of NHS overheads and NHS staff employed at the centres.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, what action has been taken by the Government since my Starred Question on 21st June on the recommendations made
1110
in the report for improving the quality—then described as unacceptable—of the orthotic services; namely, the supply of callipers and artificial appliances? Those are becoming increasingly important for our ageing population.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, as to the various recommendations made by the Audit Commission in its report, which, as the noble Lord has suggested, does not cover only the services referred to in the Question before the House today, we are giving those the most careful consideration. Clearly, we want to ensure that we provide as high quality a service as possible. I can assure the noble Lord that we are discussing ways of making real improvements in the quality of service with the NHS Purchasing and Supply Agency. It has a pivotal role to play in specifying the level of quality that is required.
Lord Clarke of Hampstead: My Lords, can my noble friend tell the House what options are available to users of the service? Furthermore, what options do they have as regards contributing to the design and range of choice in such matters? Does my noble friend agree that it is the users who are best able to comment on these issues?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I certainly agree with my noble friend's latter point. If we are to provide high quality and effective services, it is important to involve the users of those services in the specification of such equipment and services. In looking back over the past few years, I would have to say that I do not believe that users have been sufficiently involved in those discussions. Clearly, the NHS plan sets out an overall philosophy for the much stronger involvement of users of services in the future. We shall have to ensure that that relates to artificial limbs as much as it does to other services.
Baroness Barker: My Lords, does the Minister agree that one of the biggest problems faced by older and disabled people is lack of access to occupational therapists? While massive increases have been announced for the NHS, no such investment has been mentioned for care services. While that situation persists, many of the problems outlined in the report, Fully Equipped, will continue.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the noble Baroness is right to suggest that overall, in relation to services for people affected in the way that she has mentioned, we need to adopt a holistic approach which would embrace both health and local government. Unless we can do that, we shall not be able to provide the kind of readily accessible, high quality service that is required. Clearly, the Government's development of new flexibilities in the way in which health and local government can work together is one important factor in progressing that. I accept also, in relation to occupational therapists, that it is very important, in future workforce planning, to take account of the requirements of local authorities—

1111
which are major employers of occupational therapists—as much as those of the NHS. Furthermore, it is worth making the point that the NHS plan makes clear our intention to develop integrated equipment services in the future to try to pull together some of those services.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that he has done some very good work on this issue? However, I am afraid that I must differ in my interpretation of the Audit Commission's report. Whereas my noble friend has said that some favourable comments were made—I agree that that was the case—the most riveting comment made by the Audit Commission was that most of the equipment is cheap and shoddy. That is not good enough, either for my noble friend or for the House. Does he agree that overall experience has shown that investment in equipment saves money both for the user and for the taxpayer? What progress has been made since these issues were raised some time ago?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, perhaps I may say first that, overall, in relation to artificial limb services, the Audit Commission considered that there had been a more favourable response to those services than was the case for some of the other services that it reviewed. That was the point that I made earlier. However, of course I accept that, in terms of the quality of the equipment and limbs that are purchased by the NHS, we want them to be of the highest possible quality. For example, in relation to silicone cosmesis—which is one issue about which most people are concerned—we have established a group to look at the relevant issues and to advise us on what needs to be commissioned in the future. I can assure noble Lords that, through the work of the NHS Purchasing and Supply Agency, we shall involve users and we shall ensure that the NHS has available to it high quality equipment to purchase.

Road Haulage: Fuel Costs
3.8 p.m.
Lord Bradshaw Lord Bradshaw asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether there is evidence that the financial hardships of which some road hauliers complain are the result of over-capacity in the industry rather than high fuel costs.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Lord Macdonald of Tradeston): My Lords, the Government have been looking closely in the Road Haulage Forum at the economic and structural factors that affect the road haulage industry. The forum's work has shown that there are many different issues involved, including some over-capacity. Government decisions will continue to be taken in the interests of an efficient and competitive industry.
Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Perhaps I may press him a little further. Has
1112
consideration been given to paying a scrappage allowance, which would allow some hauliers to leave the industry in a dignified manner? Furthermore, does the Minister agree, if that were to be considered, that it would be necessary to ensure that entry standards to the industry were raised, enforcement improved and that foreign lorries paid a fair price for using roads in Britain?
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, scrapping old vehicles may be useful if it is linked to higher entry requirements and so on. The Government keep an open mind on all such ideas, including the possibility of issuing a vignette or "Britdisc" for British hauliers, which would mean that there would be a levy on foreign lorries using our roads. Scrappage may be of assistance to the industry, but I must stress that no decision has been taken.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the absences from the Benches opposite indicate that party's lack of a coherent policy on fuel duty? Does he further agree that the figures produced by NERA, the AA and OXERA show that users of the heaviest lorries pay only 70 per cent of their true track and environmental costs? Is my noble friend taking this into account in the forthcoming policy formulation?
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, the question of recovering some of the costs of the damage done to roads by traffic is constantly under consideration. It is true that British hauliers probably pay more than hauliers in any other country. Although in an ideal world one would like to recover the full costs, in the real world our hauliers are competing against lorry drivers and lorry companies from other countries and we must keep the competitive aspects in mind.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, reverting to the Question, if there is over-capacity in the industry—which I believe there is, although I am not sure—does not that support the case for a reduction in fuel costs?
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, I cannot follow the noble Lord's logic, though I am sure that there is a point that I am simply missing. It is important to look at the industry's ability to compete. Competing while making reasonable profits raises complex difficulties. They involve matters such as the purchasing power of increasingly consolidating sectors, such as retail and manufacturing, and the fact that in some ways haulage is one of the more vulnerable links in the supply chain. People are therefore forced to work for margins lower than they may prefer. This makes for an efficient economy, but it also makes for some disgruntled employees in the companies working within it. The Road Haulage Forum is working with associations and trade unions

1113
and we have made a lot of progress in trying to define "over-capacity". However, there is still no simple answer.
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, does my noble friend recall that one of the issues at the time of the fuel crisis was competition from Europe? Can he confirm that the competition from Europe in terms of the actual business taken is very minimal indeed?
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, this is again a complex area. If we take what is known as "cabotage"—in other words, foreign lorries coming in and taking business from inside Britain—yes, it is very low. According to the most recent surveys, it is probably only one lorry journey in every thousand. On the other hand, competition in hauling goods across the Channel has become more intense and has affected sections of our lorry fleet. We look to give those sections as much protection as we can.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, does the Minister agree that it would be unwise to do anything about any existing over-capacity in the road haulage industry while the railway freight industry is in its present condition?
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, we have had a gratifying increase in the amount of freight carried by rail in recent years. I look forward to that continuing in future, with the billions of pounds-worth of investment that have been set aside for rail freight within the 10-year transport plan. In terms of its relationship with road haulage, the inexorable growth in areas of haulage will still allow rail freight to expand. I do not see them as contradictory sectors; they can increasingly work together. As I said, over-capacity is a complex problem. There can be seasonal periods when there is something of an under-capacity. It also depends partly on regional pressures inside the United Kingdom. The statistics that many noble Lords may have seen refer to a 30 per cent over-capacity. Those figures are some four years old and I would not lay too much store on the methodology that produced them.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, is it correct that foreign trucks are coming into the UK full of very cheap but relatively high sulphur fuel?
Lord Macdonald: My Lords, it is true that foreign trucks are coming in with diesel that is not the ultra-low sulphur diesel that we incentivise and prefer. However, I should point out that British trucks can fill up on the Continent—and very cheaply, too, given the strength of the pound—and that they too can bring "dirty diesel" into Britain. I am delighted to say that the use of ultra-low sulphur diesel, which has a target date for implementation across Europe of a few years' time, is almost universal in the United Kingdom because of the co-operation of our oil companies and the discounts given by the Chancellor for ultra-low sulphur diesel.

Privy Counsellors: Confidentiality
3.16 p.m.
Lord Renton Lord Renton asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will remind all Members of the Privy Council of their duty to preserve confidentiality after discussing affairs of state confidentially with other Privy Counsellors whatever their party.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Jay of Paddington): My Lords, as a Privy Counsellor himself, the noble Lord, Lord Renton, will be aware that all members of the Privy Council are appointed by Her Majesty the Queen and are bound by the individual oath that they take on becoming members of the Privy Council. I am not aware of any present intention to issue a general reminder of the obligations that the oath imposes.
Lord Renton: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that in recent years there has been a tendency on the part of some Privy Counsellors to "go public" instead of obeying the ancient convention of confidentiality?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord is thinking of some of the instances, of which all Members of the House will be aware, in which people have perhaps written about experiences which could be said to fall under the terms of their oath. As I said in my original Answer to the noble Lord, it is for individual Privy Counsellors to decide what action is necessary in order to ensure that they meet those obligations.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that it would be a great pity were we to be deprived of the memoirs of former Prime Ministers? Does she further agree that it would be a great sadness to many of us if we could not have the pleasure of reading the revelations contained in the autobiographies of, for instance, the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, and Mr Heseltine?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord about the content of the memoirs. But if he is suggesting that someone should automatically take advantage of matters about which they have learnt in the context of their Privy Council membership, that is slightly more controversial.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, could the noble Baroness move forward on this matter by placing a copy of the Privy Counsellors' oath in the Library?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, the Privy Counsellors' oath is in the Library.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, will the noble Lord who tabled the Question forgive me for having at first

1115
instance read his Question as applying to "discussion of affairs"? I omitted the words "of state" when I first read it.
Lord Renton: My Lords, the noble Lord is not going to be answered. Surely it is in the national interest that Privy Counsellors who are members of different parties should be encouraged to discuss matters of state which are above party, such as defence and foreign affairs? In order for that to be done effectively, it should be done while obeying the convention of confidentiality. Does not the Government accept that opinion?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am sure that the Government accept that opinion. The noble Lord's original Question was about the obligations on individual Privy Counsellors to maintain their oath. The noble Lord may well be aware—although I was not aware before he asked his Question—that apparently it is regarded within the confines of the oath that a meeting of the Privy Council is taking place when only two Privy Counsellors speak to each other. I therefore had to remind the Chief Whip that he and I were both speaking in the terms of the Privy Council while sitting on the Front Bench.
Earl Russell: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that when the noble Lord, Lord Renton, lamented the breach of confidentiality by Privy Counsellors, he was mistaken in adding the words "in recent years"?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, as always, I defer to the noble Earl in his historical sweep and his view of these matters. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Renton, is concerned about the fact that these confidences are widely spread through the activities of the modern media. Those might not have been present at the time to which the noble Earl refers.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, will the noble Baroness confirm that she is as happy as I am that the traditional arrangements that have always existed between the Leader of this House and the Leader of the Opposition have been maintained and carried on, that our conversations on Privy Council terms have remained confidential, and they have always been in the interests of this House?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, and I can confirm that.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, reverting to the whole question of confidentiality referred to in the Question, does not the responsibility of a confidence freely received and given confer an obligation on a section of the population that is much greater than the Privy Council? It is usually a matter of honour that the confidences are received on the basis that they remain confidential. Is it not an obligation on us all?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, my noble friend invites me to express a personal opinion. My
1116
view is that many matters would be better discussed either on the basis that the conversation was understood to be private, or within the formal terms of an understanding of a much more serious nature such as that referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde. I am happy to support my noble friend in that personal view.

Yugoslavia: International War Crimes Tribunal
3.22 p.m.
Baroness Williams of Crosby Baroness Williams of Crosby asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will now press for those war criminals in the former republic of Yugoslavia, whose whereabouts are known, to be arrested and brought before the International War Crimes Tribunal.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): My Lords, we have made it clear to the government of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia that we expect them to meet their international obligations in a spirit of partnership with the international community. This includes co-operation with the International Criminal Tribunal for former Yugoslavia. We call on all states in the former Yugoslavia to arrest and transfer tribunal indictees in the territory.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, the Minister will be aware of a publication this morning by the International Crisis Group listing all those responsible, or alleged to be responsible, for war crimes, including some indicted by the tribunal. First, will the whole House congratulate the UK forces in their section of the SFOR project in the south-west on having to their credit by far the highest number of arrests of alleged war criminals? Can representations be made to the governments of the United States and France to follow their excellent example?
Secondly, will the United Kingdom Government make representations to the OSCE to the effect that people should not be appointed to responsible positions as police officers or to other significant public posts if they have been indicted for war crimes by the criminal tribunal?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I warmly agree with the noble Baroness in her expression of congratulations. I thank her for those sentiments. It is obviously of great importance for all our partners to do what they can to catch war criminals and we exhort them to do so.
I reassure the noble Baroness that it is the view of Her Majesty's Government that there is no place for indicted war criminals in public life in either Bosnia or Herzegovina. For that reason, the OSCE election regulations bar all those who are known to have been

1117
indicted by the ICTY from public office. It is for the provisional election commission to scrutinise candidates. We expect the commission to take into account any serious allegation concerning a candidate. I am more flan happy to say that we support that view and shall do all that we can to encourage it.
Lord Janner of Braunstone: My Lords, does my noble friend accept that the newly elected government of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia wish to ensure that war criminals are prosecuted where there is sufficient evidence, but that they wish to set up their own independent judicial system and are anxious to receive and consider applications for extradition? At the same, is it correct that they are against what they would term NATO's "snatch squads" in what they now regard as an independent democratic republic?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend that that is what the newly elected government have said. We sincerely hope that they can be relied on to deliver on that aspiration. Obviously, the preferable course would be for the government of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia to discharge their obligations to co-operate fully with the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. I hear what is said about "snatch squads". We recognise that the new government in Belgrade will find it difficult to do this swiftly; however, we expect them to tackle the issue in the way the new government of Croatia have done since January 2000. It is all part of their progress towards meeting the normal European standards of behaviour. We certainly wish them the best of luck in carrying out that task, and we hope that we can rely on them to do so vigorously.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, in the estimation of the Minister and her department, if international pressure forces the new government of the Republic of Serbia to hand over war criminals to the international tribunal, might not that have a destabilising influence, for patriotic or chauvinistic reasons, on the new government in Yugoslavia? If so, would the strictures suggested by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, do more harm than good?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, we have been encouraged by the statements made by Mr Kostunica. He has said that he recognises that offences have been committed and that he also recognises the need to bring to book those who are responsible. Those are encouraging signs. However, we recognise the sensitivity of his position. It is necessary to exhort him to deliver on his commitment while understanding that there may need to be a little time to enable him to do so.
Lord Brookman: My Lords, following on the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, will my noble friend indicate specifically the assistance that the Government have given to the war crimes tribunal in the former Republic of Yugoslavia?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I am happy to assist the House in relation to that matter. We have
1118
given significant voluntary assistance to the tribunal. Our support has included having a British scene-of-crime team in Kosovo for the second year running to gather evidence for the tribunal and for the courts being established by the UN mission in Kosovo. We have also supplied substantial amounts of information, including intelligence, to help the tribunal in its work. United Kingdom troops in Bosnia have been involved in 13 out of 24 successful detentions by the NATO-led peacekeeping mission of persons indicted by the tribunal. I say respectfully that we are giving the highest quality of assistance. Once again, I join the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, in praising all those who have participated so successfully in that effort.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, now that Yugoslavia has regained its position in the United Nations, and now that Mr Kostunica is releasing political detainees—the so-called terrorists who were detained under the previous regime—is the Minister aware that we on this side of the House totally associate ourselves with all efforts to bring to justice in the way that is supported by the Government those who have committed atrocities?
Does the Minister accept that, in this whole process of war indictments and branding war criminals, the approach should be one of great care and caution if the agonies of some of these divided societies—I am speaking more generally—are not to be prolonged? There is a danger that rushing this process of indictment could actually delay the process of reconciliation, which must be the basis for peace in the Balkans.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords., I thank the noble Lord for his kind comments in relation to the unity of view on these issues. I also understand the comments he made as regards the need for caution and care. I hope that all that I have said from this Dispatch Box about the position of Her Majesty's Government reflects the need for the caution and care of which the noble Lord speaks. Taking that factor into account, it is still necessary to say that the ICTY has a very profound job to do. In order for justice to be seen to be done, those who have been responsible for really quite atrocious war crimes need to be brought to book so that that reconciliation can be complete.

Fuel Contingency Planning
3.31 p.m.
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary in another place. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Mr Speaker, I should like to make a Statement about the contingency arrangements being put in place in the event of further blockades of fuel or other essential supplies.

1119
"The background to these arrangements is the severe disruption to fuel supplies which occurred between 7th and 14th September.
"Since the protests, a large number of meetings with outside bodies have been held by Ministers across government to discuss the concerns over fuel prices, in particular as they impact on the farming and haulage industries, which are already facing major structural problems. Indeed, prior to the protests, there were many such meetings. In the March Budget, as well as ending the fuel duty escalator, in place since 1993, the Chancellor of the Exchequer cut VED for the haulage industry and for smaller vehicles.
"In the past few weeks Ministers in various departments have held numerous meetings with organisations campaigning about the high cost of fuel. These include the Road Haulage Association, the Freight Transport Association, the Fuel Forum, the People's Fuel Lobby, Farmers for Action and the Disabled Drivers' Association. In addition to setting up the Fuel Task Force, we have also held a number of meetings with oil company representatives, the trades unions and representatives of the food and other industries affected by the protests. Ministers have also visited all the main fuel refineries and depots to talk at first hand to the tanker drivers, company managers, police and others about the lessons to be learned from the protests.
"As a result, I think that no one can fairly say that we have not made every effort to listen to people's concerns, and of course in the days that remain before the Chancellor's Statement we shall continue to do so.
"Perhaps I may now explain to the House why it is so important to make proper preparations to protect people, industry and services as far as possible against further disruption.
"The United Kingdom now has the fourth largest economy in the world. Employment is at record levels and inflation is the lowest in Europe. But, like all modern economies, fundamental changes in the way in which we live and work, and all the just-in-time arrangements, increase our vulnerability to those determined to cause disruption.
"Whatever the motives of those involved, the disruption that took place in September very nearly caused serious damage to our economy.
"The British Chamber of Commerce has published details of the effect of the disruption on the commercial activities of its members. For example, in St Helens, it reported that more than a quarter of businesses lost orders, 6 per cent laid off staff and a third predicted a long-term impact on sales. In Peterborough, almost four in 10 firms suffered lost sales and 16 per cent had to close temporarily. Many other companies suffered financial problems and lost orders. The British
1120
Chamber of Commerce concluded from its research that if the protests had 'persisted for much longer' they would have caused,
'severe damage to many firms from which some would not have recovered'.
This conclusion has been endorsed by the Trades Union Congress and by the CBI.
"I am placing in the Library of the House a report summarising information available to government departments about the impact of the disruption.
"The blockades also disrupted essential public services. At some blockades the protestors sought to excuse the impact of the disruption by letting through supplies, which they judged essential.
"But there are literally millions of people who perform functions without which the health and other essential services would grind to a halt—from nurses, doctors, hospital receptionists and cleaners to volunteers delivering meals-on-wheels, cooks and telephone operators and of course the patients themselves. They all need fuel, yet their needs were barely recognised by those at the terminal gates.
"It is therefore not from any desire whatever for confrontation, which we still seek to avoid, but because of our responsibilities as a government to the country as a whole that we must now make preparations to minimise the risk of this happening again.
"So following the September events, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister asked me to chair a Fuel Task Force to help ensure that government, industry and others were better prepared to ensure the continuity for the future.
"The task force included Ministers and representatives from the devolved administrations in Scotland and Wales, the police, the oil industry, trade unions and others. It has met on four occasions. Its members first agreed a memorandum of understanding, which committed all concerned to work together to ensure continuity of oil supplies. The arrangements include plans to direct fuel supplies to a limited number of designated filling stations and to give priority to essential users. We have upgraded arrangements to ensure that local authorities and other priority users are better prepared for any future disruption.
"As I told the House in a written Statement last week and as my right honourable friend the Armed Forces Minister repeated on Monday, we have asked the Ministry of Defence to train military drivers to help drive tankers should such assistance prove necessary; but this would be very much as a last resort.
"Preparations have also been made to help to protect food depots; to keep major roads open; and to protect potential targets other than oil terminals.
"There has of course been a lot of debate as to whether intimidation of drivers took place. It could well be that some drivers were sympathetic to the aims of the protesters. Many of those involved in the protests were intent on acting lawfully and

1121
peacefully, and did so. Peaceful protest is an important right in any properly functioning democracy. It is a right which I regard as one of my first duties to defend, as do the police.
"But the behaviour of some of the protestors did create a climate in which the drivers and their managers judged that it was unsafe to allow normal operations to continue.
"Along with ministerial colleagues, I have spoken to a large number of the tanker drivers involved. Those I met told me of a real sense of fear that they felt about driving in the face of threats of intimidation and physical attack. I am placing in the Library of the House a detailed log of 180 incidents of intimidation prepared by the oil companies, amended only to avoid identifying publicly the drivers involved. This picture of intimidation is confirmed by the Transport and General Workers' Union, whose members form a substantial majority of the drivers concerned.
"Tactics of intimidation are unacceptable in any circumstances, but particularly so against the driver of an oil tanker in personal charge of many thousands of litres of highly explosive fuel.
"The police and the oil companies have, therefore, drawn up detailed plans better to safeguard tanker drivers from the threat of intimidation and better to ensure that the tankers can move freely on to and along the highway. Tanker drivers have the right to go about their daily business in security and safety. Ensuring that is a central aim of our preparations.
"Perhaps I may repeat again that the last thing this Government want is confrontation. There will always he people who hold strong and opposing views on many issues—including, today, what to do about oil prices, the problems affecting farmers, or the difficulties facing the road haulage industry. Peaceful protest can and does play an important role in drawing such concerns to the attention of government and Parliament. It is then for we in government and Parliament to make choices.
"But I hope that the whole House will join me in saying that no one has the right to instigate the kind of disruption that we saw in September, and still less to threaten the disruption now being prepared. We have already heard public threats to blockade not only the fuel supply, but also food distribution depots. The consequences of such disruption are obvious, and they would hit the weakest and most vulnerable first. There can be no justification for such action. It is opposed by every employers' organisation and trade union, and by established hauliers and farmers' representatives.
"The measures I have outlined today should ensure that the Government, industry and our health and other public services will be better prepared to cope with the sort of direct action we witnessed in September. But real risks will remain if people persist in protesting in an extreme and irresponsible way. Those now seeking further disruption must understand that the demands they
1122
have made could not be met without great damage to jobs and industry, to essential services including the National Health Service, to pensioners and children. We all have responsibilities.
"Whatever the supposed Budget surplus—some figures being mooted are wildly exaggerated—government action is necessarily limited in three ways: it must be consistent with keeping interest rates and so mortgages at their present low;, it must not prevent us taking action to support pensioners who also need help; and it must not change the absolutely essential programme of investment in key public services—schools, hospitals, transport and police—which the Chancellor announced in July.
"The right to argue, to complain and to protest is an essential feature of a democratic society; preventing law-abiding people from going about their business, and threatening the well-being of the country is not. I hope that the whole House will join in support of the measures and the approach which I have outlined today".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
3.41 p.m.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, I am sure the whole House is grateful to the Minister for repeating the Statement made by the Home Secretary. However, it said little, and as far as I could detect nothing new, about what measures the Government propose to take in the event of further disruption. Instead it was full of bluster and argument, a lot of which is not controversial between all sides of your Lordships' House.
I confirm that we believe that the Government should take measures to protect essential supplies if there are further problems of the kind we witnessed in September. I also confirm that we thoroughly deplore unlawful or dangerous protests or intimidation. We shall, of course, study the evidence to be put in the Library on the extent of the intimidation that occurred in September. However, did the Minister see the statement of the Transport and General Workers' Union official at one depot at the time:
"This is a people's protest … It is a peaceful protest. It is the Government which is out of order"?
Has the Minister also seen what Sir John Evans, speaking for the Association of Chief Police Officers, said:
"Despite some isolated and generally small-scale incidents of attempted intimidation, these movements have taken place peacefully"?
In order to give noble Lords a feel for the extent of the intimidation, will the Minister tell us how many people were arrested and how many were charged with offences of violence, or threatened violence, as a result of the incidents in September? Given all this, does the Minister think it wise for the Government to make belligerent Statements such as this one; to talk of bringing in the Army; and publicly to urge what they in other circumstances call "panic buying" of fuel by government agencies, while deploring the same buying by other people trying to be prepared in the light of what Ministers have said?

1123
The impression I get is that Ministers—who were quite rightly politically intimidated by the scale of the protests—are now attacking the protesters. Do the Government now realise that if you dumb down and bypass Parliament people will find other outlets, however much we may deplore that? Do they realise that it is Statements such as this one which build up a crisis atmosphere, when the Government should seek to address the reasons why so many ordinary citizens feel the need to protest against the highest motoring and transport taxes in Europe?
3.44 p.m.
Lord McNally: My Lords, first, I make it clear that we on these Benches do not consider the Statement belligerent but prudent. Whether it is an unnamed TGWU official talking about a people's protest or the Leader of the Opposition talking about fine upstanding Englishmen, we disown those kind of statements associated with this extra-parliamentary activity. I assure the Minister that the Government have the unequivocal support—I am not sure we have heard that from the Official Opposition—of these Benches for the Statement today.
On a point of clarification, the Statement was made in the other place by the Home Secretary as chairman of the Fuel Task Force and repeated in this Chamber by the Minister of State for Transport. Can we be assured that this is real joined-up government? Which department is taking responsibility for these matters? Will the Government embark on a public information campaign to explain their priorities in terms of availability? I suggest that that is a good job for Dr John Reid, who appeared to be the only Minister to keep his nerve during the previous disruption.
Is the Co-operative Movement fully involved in guaranteeing food supplies? I understand that in September it was not initially consulted about that. Are there plans to call in the oil company heads before the planned disruption to make it clear that certain things are expected of them in terms of leadership should the planned disruption take place?
Will the Government also educate the public on the need for us to face up to the problems caused by over-consumption of energy in the western world? Such a campaign makes sense economically and environmentally. However, it is not a matter of the Prime Minister dipping his toe in and then dropping the issue again. It must be a sustained campaign and commitment. Is the Department of Transport, Environment and the Regions the right size and shape for the job? Do not we need a department shaped to the nation's needs rather than to the size of the Deputy Prime Minister's ego? That department is sprawling and showing signs of sprawl. In shaping policy will the Government have due regard to the needs of the rural economy? Will the Home Secretary use his full range of powers against intimidation and exploitation?
There are lessons to be learned on all sides. The Government made a mistake in assuming that fuel tax was a stealth tax with no political downside. There is
1124
now a need for a long-term strategy to lift environmental issues up the agenda and to win the argument for a public transport alternative which is cheap, efficient and available. Such a strategy will not be popular all the time. There will be losers as well as winners. However, my advice to the Government, at least for the next few weeks, is to send home the focus groups and the spin doctors and get on with the job of governing. If they govern with strength, they will have the support of this House and, I suspect, of the country at large.
3.49 p.m.
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, I am grateful for the support of the noble Lord, Lord Cope, for our efforts to protect essential services and for his condemnation, as far as it went, of the protest and the motivations behind it. However, I too found some of his quotations a little selective and unconvincing. I do not know the representative of the Transport and General Workers' Union whom he quoted. However, I know that the TGWU put up 25 solid instances of intimidation which it received from the drivers. Like my right honourable friend the Home Secretary, I, too, have been visiting terminals, talking to scores of drivers and hearing their stories about varying degrees of intimidation.
Sir John Evans served with us during the days of the worst effects of the protests. At the time there were small-scale incidents. Subsequently, those have been collated in a more methodical way by the oil companies interviewing the drivers. That is why we reach the total of 180, despite the fact that the police took an understandably low-key approach which limited the number of arrests to a couple, as far as I remember. That police approach was typically British. They did not go in in a provocative way. They let matters develop and hoped that they would take the normal course: that people would make their point and then go home before they did any serious damage to the country or their fellow citizens. It became apparent towards the end of that week that some dangers were inherent in that assumption.
However, I do not believe that what we have said today is in any way belligerent. I went out of my way to stress the fact that we have been listening. I think that the country would expect no less of any government than that they would make these preparations. Indeed, it is prudent of companies and the public services to ensure that they can keep running as long as possible should there be any recurrence of the situation.
I find the implication that bypassing Parliament—a process I do not recognise or accept—might be a rationale for disruptive action somewhat distasteful. It can never be.
From the Liberal Democrats, the noble Lord, Lord McNally, gave welcome and unequivocal support. I should explain that the task force is made up of Ministers from a number of departments. The Home Secretary is the chairman of the task force. I am there as Transport Minister, with the Secretary of State for

1125
the DTI and my right honourable friend Andrew Smith from the Treasury. On that task force we also have representatives of the oil companies. There were confusions; those difficulties affected all parties in such a complex, fast-moving disparate dispute. But the oil companies have signed up to a memorandum of understanding, with the police, government, trade unions and local authorities all involved in that process so that there is far more co-ordination should there be any recurrence of these events.
I have found the fact that my department covers environment, transport and the regions very useful with the joined-up government that that affords. The government offices across the regions help to co-ordinate the local authority and police efforts. Transport was vitally important—not only as regards the roads but also on our railways and bus and aviation services.
Yes, there is, too, the environmental aspect of which the noble Lord spoke. I think that the Deputy Prime Minister was referred to in unfairly disparaging terms. The Deputy Prime Minister drew attention just this week to the related environmentally created problems which so concern the noble Lord.
While the police are operationally independent, as ever, noble Lords may be assured that they have made it clear that they intend to use what powers they have, while guaranteeing people's right to peaceful protest. We shall govern with the strength required as events may recur. For the country's sake, let us hope that they do not recur However, I assure your Lordships that we shall govern for all the people. We shall never be intimidated by those who shout the loudest or push the hardest.
4.5 p.m.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: My Lords, should not the Minister address the disease rather than the symptoms of the disease? Despite the penal levels of taxation on fuel, is there not little evidence of consumption being reduced? To present this as an environmental measure is, frankly, dishonest. Is it not extraordinary to see a Labour Government, supported by their friends in the Liberal Party, defending a highly regressive form of taxation which damages people on fixed incomes, those living in rural areas and the elderly? Should not the Minister address that aspect and reduce the burden of taxation on fuel in our country?
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, I do not recognise the reference to the penal levels of taxation. The 26p per litre reduction demanded by the protesters would total some £12 billion. That is clearly utterly unrealistic. Also if one factors in the low personal taxes and the lower corporation taxes that we pay, and the fact that our VAT is often lower than elsewhere, one realises that the United Kingdom offers one of the lowest tax regimes in Europe.
I find the accusation of environmental dishonesty quite breathtaking in this context. The fuel duty escalator was introduced in 1993 by a government of
1126
whom the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, was a member and who justified its introduction by reference to its environmental effect.
Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate: My Lords, living as we do under the rule of law, does the Minister agree that the police role should rightly be that of impartially policing any dispute between parties—whether a domestic dispute or one of the nature we discuss today? Does my noble friend also agree that if there is evidence of people conspiring to commit criminal offences—it may amount to obstructing the road by slow convoy or otherwise—the police should consider offences such as conspiracy to deal with the problem, no matter how fine and upstanding the citizens who have conspired?
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, I defer to my noble friend's experience. He will know better than anyone else that it is a matter for police discretion. I sympathise with his concern. Statements have been made about bringing about Armageddon. I believe that it was stated yesterday that democracy had run out of time. Such statements, threats to food and fuel supplies and threats that lorries might be pulled across rail crossings, and so on, are unacceptable. However, the police are better prepared and have at their disposal the public order measure and highways legislation which contain provisions for arrestable offences. I am sure that the police can be counted upon to ensure that there is no disruption on a scale which would inconvenience our country.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, will the Minister indicate whether his task force will remain in being after the present crisis is resolved, as we hope that it will be successfully, in order to tackle the longer-term issues to which the Minister and my noble friend Lord McNally referred? I think particularly of forms of transport in the future and the way in which they should be fuelled.
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords. I hope that there will be no need to continue with our present task force after the Statement to be made next week by my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. There are other ways of approaching the conflation of problems to which the noble Lord referred. Had we time to go into them in detail, I could show him that we are taking action on most of them.
Baroness Greengross: My Lords, does the Minister accept that many disabled, vulnerable and frail people, particularly elderly people, are deeply concerned and very apprehensive about the thought of further petrol shortages? We have heard that the Government are taking steps to maintain essential services, but many such people rely on access to a car to get to services or to have services brought to them that are essential to them. They may need to get food, to go to a day centre, or to visit the doctor. Many of them do not have their own car. They must be able to rely on help from others.

1127
I heard of one home care scheme whose co-ordinator was deeply worried during the previous shortages that she would lose touch completely with her elderly dependent clients, because her volunteer drivers in their own cars were running out of petrol. I am sure that that worry is replicated nationally. Robust measures need to be taken, particularly given recent weather conditions, to ensure that such voluntary measures can be maintained. If they are not, there will be very sad, if not tragic, consequences.
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, I totally agree with the noble Baroness. There was no greater obscenity during the recent events than the pickets outside gates deciding what was essential and what was inessential with very little understanding of how our complex and vulnerable society works. It is not a case simply of keeping blue light services supplied. As I said earlier, millions of our fellow citizens need to be mobile, particularly to look after the vulnerable. As the noble Baroness said, great concerns were beginning to develop at the end of the last set of events about the supply of drugs to people who were ill at home, some of them in a very poor condition. There were also worries about home helps, home care and meals on wheels. All those services require people to turn up at their place of work and get into a car and drive to help the most vulnerable in our society. It may not have been fully appreciated at the time, but it is incumbent on all of us to ensure that there are no illusions about the severity of the consequences of interrupting fuel and food supplies.
Lord Judd: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that one of the most distressing elements in the saga is the distasteful insensitivity of some of those threatening disruptive action? For example, whatever their difficulties, to see any comparison between the hardship that they claim that they suffer and the hardship suffered by the original Jarrow marchers is almost unimaginable from any quarter in our society. That should be treated with the contempt that it deserves.
Does my noble friend also agree that there is a strategic question at stake in the dispute? It is the relationship between our fuel policy and the accelerating dangers of global warming. Is it not important for the Government to give more prominence to that strategic consideration when deploying their case?
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, I entirely agree with those sentiments. The Jarrow march in the early 1930s, when millions were unemployed and people were in a state of destitution, is in no way comparable with the problems that some hauliers and farmers face today. That is not to underestimate the problems of those industries. As I said earlier, hauliers earn very tight margins—indeed, some of them make almost no margin—and the stresses in the farming community are well known. However, as some of this morning's newspapers have pointed out, some of those
1128
involved have substantial capital assets and could in no way be compared with those who marched from Jarrow.
I do not accept that we are not addressing the issue of global warming. My right honourable friends the Minister for the Environment, the Deputy Prime Minister and the Prime Minister have all talked recently about the importance of ensuring that our actions today do not imperil this planet in the future.
Lord Boardman: My Lords, the Minister referred to the cuts in expenditure on health, education and other matters that would be a consequence of a reduction in fuel tax. Were not the funding arrangements made at the time of the Budget and based on the price of petrol at that time? Since then, has there not been a massive escalation in the price of petrol and consequent excess revenue for the Government? Is it not provocative to refer to such figures at such a sensitive time, suggesting that, after the bonuses that the Government have received, any reduction in fuel tax would inevitably cut into essential items such as health and education?
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, I do not accept the thrust of the noble Lord's argument, because the financial situation is always dynamic. I am sure that, like me, he has read this week that the Treasury's take from corporate taxation and capital gains tax may have gone down recently. Demands for a 26p cut in fuel duty have been made to me in private, on television and at many meetings that I have held with some of the groups who are demanding negotiation—as they put it—and who say that we do not listen when what they mean is that we have listened, but we do not agree with them. It is indisputable that that would add up to £11.8 billion. We could not take that out of our resources without consequent damage to other services. Those to whom I have talked have made it clear that it is not in their minds to reduce the £3.8 billion that goes to farmers—and nor should it be. I have pointed out to them that the Prime Minister took charge of the recent negotiations that delivered an extra £200 million to farmers. I have also pointed out that the fishermen who have come to the aid of some of the protesters pay no duty on their diesel. Farmers readily accept that they pay only 3p on their red diesel. The equation is complicated and was not illuminated by the noble Lord's contribution.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I hope it is accepted in every quarter of the House that in times of protest, whatever our opinion of the protest, the Government's first priority must be that the show must go on. Pursuant to that, the Minister may remember that during the last protest, a number of lorry drivers abandoned their lorries in the carriageway in the middle of Hyde Park Corner during rush hour. I must declare an interest, having been personally affected, but I doubt that the view that that is an undesirable practice is particularly controversial. Will the Minister consult his right honourable friend the Home Secretary and ask him to

1129
discuss with the police whether they see any need for additional powers to deal with that practice, should it be repeated?
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, I am assured by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary and others on the task force that the police have said that they believe that they have all the powers necessary to deal with any events of the kind described. Yes, lorries were abandoned in Park Lane and, yes, in line with their operational independence the police took the type of decision which they felt was suitable at that place and time. Certainly, from this distance I would not try to second-guess those decisions.
However, the noble Earl is correct: the show must go on. I hope that, from what they have heard today, noble Lords will feel that we are doing everything in our power to ensure that the show does go on.
Lord Lea of Crondall: My Lords, noble Lords opposite blame the crisis on fuel duty. However, does my noble friend agree that the escalation in the summer was caused almost entirely by the doubling of the OPEC price? Therefore, a balance must be struck. We must stick to our Kyoto commitments, but it is the handling of the OPEC effect that has caused such difficulty, which of course includes the difficulty in relation to public finance.
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, in my previous ministerial incarnation at the Scottish Office I was responsible for North Sea oil and gas, and went to bed of a night praying that the price of oil would rise from l0 dollars a barrel. As it began to rise inexorably, I was switched to transport. Therefore, the fact that the price has trebled in only 18 months has burned in my brain. I believe that OPEC's impact has been important.
However, other forces are at work here, too. We have a stable economy; we have the lowest unemployment for 25 years; we have the lowest inflation in Europe; and we have historically low and stable interest rates. Consequently, we also have a very strong currency. Although the price of, say, a litre of diesel in this country seems high compared with the cost in Europe, it is worth saying that, were the pound still at 2.45 deutschmarks, we would probably have the fourth or fifth most expensive fuel in Europe. Therefore, many factors impinge on this matter. It would be simplistic to imply that our continuation of the previous government's fuel duty escalator and our subsequent increases in duty were solely to blame.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, the noble Lord said that it had been concluded that it was too dangerous for the tanker drivers to take out their vehicles. Therefore—I believe that there is a degree of causation about this—it is the Government's plan that in certain circumstances military drivers should be employed. In terms of the danger, can the noble Lord tell me the difference between a military driver, who, of course, is under discipline and will obey orders, and an ordinary
1130
tanker driver? Will they not be in equal danger when taking out such a vehicle? Is it planned that military tankers should be protected by the police (which would be interesting), or are we going to see armed convoys? Is this not a slight reflection of the General Strike, and will the Government be very careful in their use of the military for these purposes?
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, like any government, this Government would be most cautious in introducing Army drivers. However, it is quite clear that that power should be available in the last resort. We shall continue to work closely with the police and with trade unions to ensure that maximum safety is provided for the tanker drivers. In those circumstances, it should be possible to keep fuel supplies moving. If occasions arise when that is not possible, then of course we must have recourse to other help. That help comes most readily from the Ministry of Defence.
However, I stress that no magic wand can be waved. We would probably be able to keep 20, 30 or 40 per cent of fuel going should we be forced to rely on the Army alone. Therefore, we look to the support of every part of the community. We look to the Benches opposite to stand alongside the Liberal Democrats, the CBI, the trade unions and, indeed, a whole range of industries. Yesterday the retail industry stated that this type of intimidation is utterly unacceptable inside a democracy.
Lord Denham: My Lords, do the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, and Her Majesty's Government agree that at least some lesson is to be learnt from the quite extraordinary measure of support given to the protest by the general public, even though the general public itself was inconvenienced by it?
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, I accept that people have every right to feel aggrieved at what governments do and to support action in protest. However, I believe that, over time, the consequences of those actions have become clearer. People have had time to reflect and to see more clearly what could have happened as a result of the dispute. Therefore, it is no accident that, as reflected in the newspapers this week, we see a swing of opinion. I noted with interest that the Sun, the Daily Mirror and the Star as well as The Times, the Guardian and other newspapers have come out strongly against the protestors.
Should people persist with the threats that have been made recently, which would hit the sick and the vulnerable first and worst, then, as I say—I make no apologies for repeating the request—I hope that everyone in the House will stand up and declare firmly that that type of disruption has no place in a democracy.
The Attorney-General (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, I believe that we have come to the end of the mandatory time available, as set out in the Companion.

Transport Bill
4.16 p.m.
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now further considered on Report.
Moved, That the Bill be further considered on Report.—(Lord Macdonald of Tradeston.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston Lord Macdonald of Tradeston moved Amendment No. 295:
Before Clause 253, insert the following new clause—
("Charges for street works on highway

CHARGE FOR WHOLE DURATION OF WORKS
.—(1) In the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991, after section 74 insert—
"Charge determined by reference to duration of works.
74A.—(1) The Secretary of State may make provision by regulations requiring an undertaker executing street works in a maintainable highway to pay to the highway authority a charge determined, in the prescribed manner, by reference to the duration of the works.
(2) The regulations shall not require charges to be paid to a local highway authority unless the Secretary of State has approved it for the purposes of the regulations by order made by statutory instrument.
(3) The regulations may prescribe exemptions from the requirement to pay charges.
(4) The regulations may prescribe different rates of charge according to—

(a) the extent to which the surface of the highway is affected by the works,

(b) the place and time at which the works are executed, and

(c) such other factors as appear to the Secretary of State to be relevant.

(5) The regulations may—

(a) prescribe more than one rate of charge in respect of the same description of works, and

(b) provide that charges are to be paid in respect of any works of that description at the rate which appears to the highway authority to be appropriate in relation to those works.

(6) The regulations may make provision for the determination of the duration of works for the purposes of the regulations.
(7) And they may, in particular, make provision for works to be treated as beginning or ending on the giving of, or as stated in, a notice given by the undertaker to the highway authority, in the prescribed manner, in accordance with a requirement imposed by the regulations.
(8) The regulations may make provision as to the time and manner of making payment of charges.
(9) The regulations shall provide that a highway authority may reduce the amount, or waive payment, of a charge—

(a) in any particular case,

(b) in such classes of case as they may decide or as may be prescribed, or

(c) in all cases or in all cases other than a particular case or such class of case as they may decide or as may be prescribed.

(10) The regulations may make provision as to—

(a) the application by local highway authorities of sums paid by way of charges, and

1132

(b) the keeping of accounts, and the preparation and publication of statements of account, relating to sums paid by way of charges.

(11) The regulations may create in respect of any failure to give a notice required by the regulations a criminal offence triable summarily and punishable with a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.
(12) The regulations may require disputes of any prescribed description to be referred to an arbitrator appointed in accordance with the regulations.
(13) The first regulations under this section shall not be made unless a draft of them has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament; subsequent regulations shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
Regulations under sections 74 and 74A.
74B. Nothing shall be taken to prevent the imposition of charges by both regulations under section 74 and regulations under section 74A in respect of the execution of the same works at the same time."
(2) The reference to the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991 in Schedule 1 to the National Assembly for Wales (Transfer of Functions) Order 1999 is to be treated as referring to that Act as amended by this section and section (Charges where works unreasonably prolonged).").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 295, I wish to speak to the other amendments in this group, also standing in my name.
In response to an amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, in Committee, I announced that the Government would consider whether we could bring forward amendments on Report to provide powers for highway authorities to levy a charge on undertakers who carry out street works from the first day of works—the so-called "lane rental". I am glad to say that the amendments before us now fulfil that pledge.
In that regard, I must confess that I believed that the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, was pressing a matter beyond what I considered to be possible. However, such was his persistence and eloquence that I and colleagues looked at the matter again and again to ensure that it was fully referred. I am delighted to say that we finally concluded that we had been tardy and that the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, had been right.
I should make clear that the Government fully recognise that gas, telecommunications and other undertakers have statutory rights to carry out street works as part of providing the public with services which we regard as essential in a modern society. On the other hand, businesses, public transport users, pedestrians, private motorists and other road users are entitled to expect the minimum disruption from those necessary activities.
A number of measures are already in place or are in the process of being introduced to minimise the disruption caused by street works. However, the Government are well aware that there is no room for complacency. As noble Lords may recall, last year we consulted interested parties on a number of options for reducing disruption from street works. After considering the responses, we announced in April this year our intention to activate Section 74 of the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991. That will allow

1133
highway authorities to charge utility companies in respect of street works which are unreasonably prolonged.
We have now prepared draft regulations which set out the detailed arrangements for operating a scheme under Section 74. Those are currently out to consultation, and we hope to be in a position to lay them before Parliament by the end of the year. Copies of the draft regulations and the other consultation documents are in the Library. The regulations will be subject to affirmative resolution.
However, we fully recognise that it may be necessary to introduce further measures if the Section 74 arrangements do not result in a sufficient reduction in the present level of disruption.
So, we shall be reviewing the situation to see whether further measures may be required; for instance, a lane rental scheme allowing highway authorities to charge undertakers from the outset of works, even where these do not overrun an agreed deadline.
New Clause 295 provides for regulations to implement such a lane rental scheme. But it does not attempt to set out every last detail on the face of the Bill. Should we decide that we wish to activate this power, we shall want to consult extensively with interested parties, including highway authorities and utilities, on the detailed arrangements.
The 1991 Act already requires undertakers to notify highway authorities about the execution of works. We envisage additionally that any lane rental scheme would be underpinned by a requirement for undertakers to produce formal notices informing authorities of each of the key dates for individual works. So, for example, they would have to produce a notice announcing the actual start date of works and another stating the date on which the reinstatement of the road surface was completed. These notices would allow the authority to calculate the rental charge for which the undertaker was liable.
We should make it clear that should we decide to introduce regulations activating the power to operate lane rental schemes, authorities will not be forced to put such a scheme in place in their area. After all, it is quite clear that the disruption caused by streetworks is a greater problem in some parts of the country than in others. Given this, subsection (2) makes it clear that authorities wishing to proceed with a scheme will need to submit details of it to the Secretary of State or the Welsh Assembly, as appropriate, for approval.
In considering whether to approve a scheme, we shall want to satisfy ourselves that authorities are acting responsibly and that the detail of the scheme is commensurate with the disruption caused by streetworks in their area. It would not be acceptable, for example, if it became clear that an authority's motive in introducing a scheme was purely to raise extra revenue for itself.
While it is our intention to address the detailed arrangements for lane rental in regulations, the amendment does set out some of the issues that we shall want to cover there. These might include, for instance, the level at which charges should be set, and
1134
how these would vary according to the location, extent and timing of works. We should also want to set out what exemptions there might be from a requirement to pay lane rental charges, for instance for emergency works which have to be carried out at very short notice.
Whatever the detailed arrangements for operating the lane rental scheme might be, should the Government decide to proceed to laying regulations these will be subject to affirmative resolution. Noble Lords will, therefore, have the opportunity to scrutinise the proposals in detail at that stage.
New Clause 296 modifies the existing power in Section 74 of the 1991 Act for the Secretary of State to issue regulations which require undertakers to pay a charge to the relevant highway authority where their works exceed the deadline which had previously been agreed with the authority.
As I explained earlier, draft regulations under Section 74 are currently out for consultation. However, when preparing these, it became apparent that in any scheme for providing for highway authorities to charge undertakers, the authorities would need clear evidence of when works began and ended.
Following discussion between the relevant parties, it was agreed, as with lane rental, that the best way to provide this evidence would be for the regulations to provide for formal notices to be given by undertakers to highway authorities stating the start and close of works. However, the 1991 Act does not currently provide the power for requiring such notices. Also, although Section 74 provides that an undertaker may inform the highway authority that his original estimate of the duration of works is likely to be exceeded, there is no power to require that this be done by way of a notice from the undertaker to the authority, or to prescribe the contents of such a notice. The new clause thus provides for such notices to be given, and for their contents to be prescribed in regulations.
Section 74 of the 1991 Act already provides for a number of matters relating to the levying of charges to be dealt with in regulations; for instance, the time and manner of payment of charges and the ability of the authority to waive or reduce payments in certain circumstances.
However, in order to bring the arrangements into line with those for lane rental, the amendment also provides for a number of further areas to be dealt with in regulations. So, for instance, the regulations may allow for certain works, such as emergency works, to be exempted from the requirement to pay charges.
Amendment No. 337 is a simple tidying-up exercise to make it clear that as a result of the changes we are making to the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991, an undertaker will now be obliged, rather than given the option, to submit a notice to the relevant highway authority containing a revised estimate of duration where he considers that works are likely to exceed the original deadline agreed with the authority. This will make it far easier for the authority to track the progress of specific works.
Finally, Amendment No. 338 makes it clear that the revised power to make regulations under Sections 74 and 74A of the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991 applies only to England and Wales.
Roadworks is a devolved matter for Scotland, and it is for the Scottish Parliament to make separate provision in primary legislation, should it choose to do so. I beg to move.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I should like to say how touched I was by the generous remarks with which the noble Lord opened his speech. Not all Ministers either listen very carefully or are subsequently prepared to admit that they were wrong and change course and then very generously to give the credit to a political opponent. The noble Lord did so, and I am grateful to him.
In thanking the Minister, I hope that for as long as the noble Lord remains in his post, the powers that the Government are taking will not end up as another battery of guns which are for ever silent.
What justification is there for allowing approximately 138 companies to dig holes in the road more or less at their convenience and with not the slightest regard—indeed, they have a contemptuous disregard—for the interests of others who have every right to use the road? The present arrangements allow that legion of people to stake out their territories with cones, rather like wild animals. Of course, they do use cones, rather than the methods of the jungle. It seems to me that they are over-privileged.
The process allows those operators not merely to stake out their territories, but to come back at their convenience and dig a hole, leaving it untenanted and unoccupied, and to return when pressure of other things allows. They do what they have to do in the hole, fill it up and before they leave, carry out very inadequate repairs. The only excuse for that casual conduct is that as soon as they finish, someone else will dig up the same road for a quite different purpose.
This good cause has been neglected by the media in general, but Mr Freeman of the Evening Standard has pursued zealously a well-justified campaign. He called attention to the disgusting state of Regent Street, occasioned simply by the amount of space cordoned off for these operations and the litter and filth which accumulated as a result.
I quote from an article of 10th April in the Evening Standard which stated:
"The hole, dug on behalf of contractors working for gas pipeline maintenance company, Transco, sat in the middle of one of London's busiest bus lanes which serves seven different bus routes. It was one of at least five sets of roadworks in the West End where, as the Evening Standard disclosed last week, traffic is being reduced to a virtual standstill by contractors working for numerous utilities".
I do not want to single out one company in particular, but Transco seems to be a regular, very consistent and rather ungracious offender, although it must be said in its defence that when someone from the Evening Standard rang it up and said, "You've got a
1136
hole which you are not attending to", someone did come running along the next day to fill it in. But that should not have been necessary.
I rather wonder about this. Transco is, or was, a subsidiary of a creature called British Gas, which has now ceased to exist, I believe, in all but name. Transco is owned by a firm called Lattice Group, which resides in Jermyn Street. I wonder whether the chairman, Mr John Parker—the time has come to mention a few names—is really aware of the indignation, inconvenience and annoyance for which he or his company is responsible. I hope that he will learn some lessons before too long.
I have continued to press this matter for a good year now because I have been rather shocked by the way in which offenders seem to have little regret and no remorse or even concern about the inconvenience that they cause to others.
One must be concerned also about subcontractors who seem only too often to be a law unto themselves and their principals do not consider themselves in any way responsible for the way in which they conduct their affairs. I very much hope that the Minister's forceful character will make it clear to principals that they are responsible and answerable for what their subcontractors do. There is no possible excuse for letting them get away with the cavalier behaviour for which they are so often responsible.
I turn now briefly to highway authorities and in that bracket, for the moment, I include the Highways Agency. Those are the authorities upon which we are dependent generally for keeping our highways for the purpose for which they were originally intended, but which is often forgotten; namely, movement. The fact that highways were originally constructed for movement seems to be largely forgotten by, of all people, highways authorities which prolong their activities for operations which are quite often minor and trivial, but they go on for weeks, attended to by one or two men. There is no urgency about it. There is absolutely no sense of concern about the inconvenience caused to the public.
I hope that the noble Lord will undertake to address some very sharp words and advice to those upon whom he is going to rely to make his policies effective, those policies which we shall certainly approve today.
I cannot resist the temptation to mention Westminster Bridge. What has happened in regard to Westminster Bridge must have aroused the envy of all those who wish to disrupt and upset ordinary human commerce. I asked the Minister about this matter, but he was quite unable to answer for reasons with which I sympathise. But I should not mind having a bet with him that over the past five years or so there has been practically no days at all when all the lanes on Westminster Bridge, and the access roads to the bridge, were available to ordinary traffic. That is an absolute scandal.
When the very long bridge in San Francisco was upset by an earthquake, the Americans got it open again in months. It took three years or more to strengthen Westminster Bridge. They could have

1137
pulled the whole damn thing down and rebuilt it in less than that time if there were even a remote measure of competence.
I have the gravest doubts about the competence, will and resolution of highway authorities. I hope that the Minister will do his best to set them on the course for improvement. Heaven knows, they can hardly get worse.
The Government can be absolutely sure of support on this. I hope that they will not under-rate—I am sure they do not—the immense forces of inertia which they are against on the part of utilities which, so far, have shown nothing but determination to continue to enjoy unjustified privileges.
I pay tribute to, among others, the RAC which has been extremely persistent in pressing this case upon the Government. I should like to quote from a letter which it wrote to me the other day which stated:
"The number of utility street works are most noticeable in central London around the Palace of Westminster at present time. Parliament Square has been chaos for most of the summer, along with St James' and Piccadilly. Extensive working is being undertaken around Northumberland Avenue and Old Palace Yard. Due to work on Westminster Bridge traffic is being forced into one lane of traffic at either side. Similarly, considerable work is being undertaken along Birdcage Walk".
We are left with hardly a patch of this part of London untouched. If there is, that must be because its existence has just been ignored.
I do not want to trespass further upon your Lordships' time. But I have three particular worries. First, in the amendment which the Minister moved, he has been loyal to the draftsman and left in the word "may" as opposed to "shall". I should be very much happier to see the amendment read that the Secretary of State "shall" make provision instead of the rather humble and lame-sounding "may". But I hope that the spirit of the noble Lord will be sufficient to give that word "may" rather more of an imperative smack.
My second point is to express some regret that the lane rental power will not be used unless and until the other measures seem insufficient. In present circumstances, and having regard to the record of the people who have caused this trouble regularly, I believe that the noble Lord will be well advised to bring out all his forces now, aim them at those who really deserve to be shot at, and conduct an operation with all the means at his disposal in order to make sure of the result.
My third concern is that the paralysis which comes of having too many people involved and no one responsible may come oozing out and swamp the Government's present good intentions. The result would then be to buttress and give fresh life to the incompetence, ill manners and abuse of privilege which has been such a nuisance on the roads and streets not just of London but of this country as a whole for far too long.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I compliment my noble friend for having listened to the representations that have been made. In no way do I cast any aspersions upon the noble Lord who has been a friend
1138
of mine for many years. However, my noble friend has learned a superb lesson in regard to listening to the concerns of this House. We have had the experience not only of the theories, but of the day-to-day practical concerns as regards this matter. I thank my noble friend for having listened carefully to the representations that have been made by the noble Lord, Lord Peyton.
I apologise that, as a result of my stroke, sometimes I become rather muddled. However, I am not muddled about one thing: the experience of every person who has come before my noble friend has been taken into account and I thank him from the bottom of my heart.
Lord Monson: My Lords, as someone who has previously spoken out in favour of just such a move, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Peyton of Yeovil, for his insistence, and like the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, I congratulate the Government on being open-minded enough to listen to the arguments and to accept them in such a constructive manner. These amendments are extremely worth while and will be widely welcomed by the public at large.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I have a few questions to put to the Minister, but first I thank him and I congratulate most warmly the noble Lord, Lord Peyton of Yeovil, who, through his own campaign, working with the Evening Standard and with quite a lot of coverage from "Today in Parliament", has kept this issue well to the fore.
On the first amendment, can the Minister confirm that the provisions will extend to footpaths as well as to carriageways? He mentioned pedestrians, but can we be assured that the dislodging of pedestrians from footpaths, as well as the problems of works to a carriageway spilling over on to a footpath, will be taken into account?
On the lane rental provisions, noble Lords will be aware that local authorities charge undertakers when the highway authority has to refill a hole because it has been filled so incompetently in the first place, and that that is something that happens quite often. I hope that the rental charged to the undertaker will extend to that circumstance; in other words, that the highway authority will not have to bear the cost. I appreciate that that point will be covered by regulations and will not be on the face of the Bill.
The Minister made a point about the start and finish of works. I hope that the factual position will override a date notified by an undertaker. Frankly, I would be fairly suspicious about the accuracy of such dates. I am sure that I am not the only Member of this House who is irritated by how much litter, such as abandoned signs and pieces of fencing from around works, is left behind at the close of works, particularly in London. Often those who undertake work do not clear up once the job is finished.
Having made those three points, I thank the Minister for ensuring that these provisions are included in the Bill.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, I also congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Peyton of Yeovil. He has been concerned with this matter for a long time and deserves every congratulation on achieving government acceptance, in principle, of his proposals.
My point follows on a point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, on lane rentals for footpaths. The noble Lord, Lord Peyton, mentioned Birdcage Walk. I do not know whether he has tried to walk along that road, but it is just about impossible to drive down it, and walking down it is even worse because the contractors have taken over both footpaths with an unfriendly wire fence.
Regularly one finds that footpaths are blocked by spoil from road excavations. One classic case in Oxford, where I live, involved a bus lane where one is encouraged to cycle as it is also a cycle route. For some reason it was dug up and a large sign was erected saying, "Cyclists dismount". Why should cyclists dismount? Why should not the cars slow down? Why should there not be space for pedestrians? If cars and vehicles can use the road, cyclists and pedestrians should be able to use it as well.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I join noble Lords who have congratulated my noble friend Lord Peyton on his supreme resistance in raising this issue for about a year, through Starred Questions, Unstarred Questions, a Private Member's Bill and amendments to this Bill. The result is that we have government amendments that meet his points. I also thank the Minister warmly for bringing forward these amendments.
I may not have understood what the Minister said in introducing the amendments. He said that the regulations under existing Section 74 of the New Roads and Street Works Act are now in draft and out for consultation and it is hoped that they will be brought into force by the end of the year. The second of the two amendments seeks to amend Section 74 and mentions regulations. Will those regulations come in simultaneously with those regulations that are now out in draft form, or will there be a further delay while they are consulted upon? I do not want to sound carpish, but originally the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, said in June that he had hoped that the orders would be laid before the House in the autumn, before the end of this parliamentary session. We have already seen some slippage in that, but that may be because the second amendment requires additional regulations. Can the Minister clarify that particular point?
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, my understanding of the regulations, referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, is that the reports on the consultations will occur simultaneously, so the answer is yes. My noble friend Lord Berkeley spoke of the position in Birdcage Walk. I remind the House that that is a royal park and what takes place there is up to the royal park.
1140
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, mentioned footpaths, or footways as they are technically described. They will come under the same considerations as roads. As for pedestrians, there will be a code of practice that will set out how utilities should carry out their works, which should make provision for pedestrians. Clearly, the rental costs will be a matter for regulation. I am sure that that will encompass the point that she makes about the factual position as to the notification of dates.
I am grateful to all those who congratulated us on this matter. As I said earlier, those congratulations belong in large measure to the noble Lord, Lord Peyton. I accept his stricture on the word "shall" as opposed to the word "may". I confess to being a victim of the tyranny of the pedants who draft these provisions; but I am the creature in these matters in this instance.
The noble Lord, Lord Peyton, posed many other questions of substance. Like him, I hope that these powers will not be an unused battery of guns if there is evidence that they are required. My intuition, which I am sure the noble Lord shares, is that when new Section 74A is enacted, it will be seen as something that can be usefully employed throughout England and Wales. I anticipate that Section 74 will be given something of a run for its money. But in the not-too-distant future, new Section 74A will be called into play.
I take also the noble Lord's point about the campaign conducted by the Evening Standard. In my previous role, one of the media companies under my chairmanship was the Glasgow Evening Times, which won the award for being the best evening newspaper in the United Kingdom, but ceded it quite rapidly to the Evening Standard. I should say that under the editorship of Max Hastings, Londoners are well served by that newspaper in its constant vigilance. It is well known for its awards so I hope that, if it introduces a new award, perhaps for good works as well as roadworks, at some point it will set a golden cone upon the head of the noble Lord, Lord Peyton.
I am delighted that what we have been able to do in this regard has been so well received. I commend the amendment to your Lordships.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Lord Whitty)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Lord Whitty) moved Amendment No. 296:
Before Clause 253, insert the following new clause—

CHARGE FOR WHOLE DURATION OF WORKS

  CHARGES WHERE WORKS UNREASONABLY PROLONGED
  (".—(1) Section 74 of the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991 (charges where works unreasonably prolonged) is amended as follows.
  (2) After subsection (2) insert—
  "(2A) The regulations may prescribe exemptions from the requirement to pay charges."
  (3) In subsection (3)—

  (a) for "may submit to the authority" substitute "shall give to the authority, in such manner as may be prescribed, notice containing". and

  1141

  (b) for "so submitted" substitute "contained in a notice given to an authority in such manner".

  (4) In subsection (4), for "may submit" substitute "shall give to the authority, in such manner as may be prescribed, notice containing".
  (5) After subsection (5) insert—
  "(5A) The regulations may—

  (a) prescribe more than one rate of charge in respect of the same description of works, and

  (b) provide that charges are to be paid in respect of any works of that description at the rate which appears to the highway authority to be appropriate in relation to those works.

  (5B) The regulations may make provision for the determination of the duration of works for the purposes of the regulations.
  (5C) And they may, in particular, make provision for works to be treated as beginning or ending on the giving of, or as stated in, a notice given by the undertaker to the highway authority, in the prescribed manner, in accordance with a requirement imposed by the regulations."
  (6) In subsection (7), for the words from "charge" to the end substitute—

  "(a) in any particular case,

  (b) in such classes of case as they may decide or as may be prescribed, or

  (c) in all cases or in all cases other than a particular case or such class of case as they may decide or as may be prescribed."

  (7) After that subsection insert—
  "(7A) The regulations may make provision as to—

  (a) the application by local highway authorities of sums paid by way of charges, and

  (b) the keeping of accounts, and the preparation and publication of statements of account, relating to sums paid by way of charges.

  (7B) The regulations may create in respect of any failure to give a notice required by the regulations a criminal offence triable summarily and punishable with a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale."").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 297:
  Before Clause 253, insert the following new clause—
  ("Driver training and driving instructors
  COMPULSORY DRIVER TRAINING COURSES
  . In the Road Traffic Act 1988, after section 99 insert—
  "Driver training
  Compulsory driver training courses.
  99ZA. Regulations may make provision about training in the driving of motor vehicles by means of courses provided in accordance with the regulations ("driver training courses").
  Requirements to complete training courses.
  99ZB.—(1) Regulations under section 99ZA of this Act may provide that persons who have not successfully completed a driver training course—

  (a) may not take a test of competence to drive motor vehicles of a prescribed class (or a prescribed part of such a test),

  (b) are not authorised to drive motor vehicles of a prescribed class (before having passed a test of competence to drive them) by a provisional licence (or by section 98(2) or 99A(5) of this Act),

  (c) are not granted a licence authorising the driving of motor vehicles of a prescribed class by virtue of regulations under section 89(6)(b) or (c) of this Act, or

  1142

  (d) are not authorised to drive motor vehicles of a prescribed class in prescribed circumstances (despite having passed a test of competence to drive them).

  (2) But a person is exempt from provision made by virtue of subsection (1)(b), (c) or (d) above if he is undergoing training on a driver training course and is driving a motor vehicle as part of the training.
  (3) And regulations under section 99ZA of this Act may include provision exempting persons from any provision made by virtue of subsection (1) above in other circumstances; and regulations including such provision may (in particular)—

  (a) limit an exemption to persons in prescribed circumstances,

  (b) limit an exemption to a prescribed period or in respect of driving in a prescribed area,

  (c) attach conditions to an exemption, and

  (d) regulate applications for an exemption.

  (4) Regulations under section 99ZA of this Act may include provision for the evidencing by a person of his being within—

  (a) the exemption specified in subsection (2) above, or

  (b) any exemption provided by virtue of subsection (3) above.

  (5) Regulations under section 99ZA of this Act may provide that a driver training course is not to be taken into account for the purposes of the regulations if it was completed before such time as is prescribed.
  Driver training courses: supplementary.
  99ZC.—(1) Regulations under section 99ZA of this Act may include—

  (a) provision about the nature of driver training courses,

  (b) provision for the approval by the Secretary of State of persons providing such courses and the withdrawal of approvals (including provision for appeals against refusal and withdrawal of approvals) and provision for exemptions from any requirement of approval,

  (c) provision for the training or assessment, or the supervision of the training or assessment, of persons providing driver training courses,

  (d) provision setting the maximum amount of any charges payable by persons undergoing such courses, and

  (e) provision for the evidencing of the successful completion of such courses.

  (2) Such regulations may include provision for the charging of reasonable fees in respect of the exercise of any function conferred or imposed on the Secretary of State by such regulations.
  (3) Such regulations may make different provision—

  (a) for different classes of motor vehicles,

  (b) for different descriptions of persons, or

  (c) otherwise for different circumstances."").

  The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 297 I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 298 to 301. These amendments deal with the subject of driver training and driver instruction.
  The main purpose of the government amendments is two-fold; that is, to be able to prescribe compulsory driver training courses and to improve the supervision and appeal arrangements for approved driving instructors. Amendment No. 297 owes a lot to earlier amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, and we discussed those issues in Committee. It was useful for her to take that initiative and to address what is an important dimension of our road safety strategy; that is, the improvement of driver instruction and the conduct of

  1143
  approved driving instructors. Amendment No. 297 deals with issues that arose in relation to her earlier amendment to make it more compatible with road traffic legislation and much of this, therefore, arises at her initiative.
  I shall deal first with driver training courses. As part of our efforts to raise driving standards, all of which were set out in our road safety strategy, we wish to be able to introduce training schemes for users of different classes of motor vehicle. In particular, we wish to ensure that those learning to drive lorries and buses complete a syllabus that covers the relevant core competencies.
  Amendments Nos. 297 and paragraphs 2 to 6 of Amendment No. 301 replace the existing power that enables us to prescribe compulsory basic training courses for learner motorcyclists and moped riders. That power was introduced in 1990 and is generally agreed to have raised training standards and reduced road traffic accidents in that sector. We wish to be able to extend that approach to drivers of other types of motor vehicles.
  The introduction of driver training schemes will be by regulations. Those regulations will set out in detail the content of training courses, the approval of the training bodies and the certification of individual instructors. We shall have flexibility when the training takes place within the testing and licensing process. Where, as in most cases, learners are subject to an accompanying driver rule, we envisage satisfactory completion of training as a condition of being eligible to take a driving test.
  The power to make regulations under that head will enable us to prescribe training requirements for people who have a provisional licence and who have some road experience, but who need structured training before they take a test. Regulations under head (b) will re-enact the current provisions about compulsory basic training for learner motorcyclists to be introduced before a person can use another type of provisional licence.
  Under head (c) we will deal with the situation in which a person passes a driving test in one type of vehicle and automatically obtains entitlement to drive another; for example, successfully passing a motor car test carries with it the right to a moped licence. There are road safety implications in that regard and we want to ensure that anybody using a moped on that entitlement first undertakes basic rider training.
  Under head (d), the provisions prescribe a training obligation before a person can drive motor vehicles of a particular class in specific circumstances. We will be able to tailor courses to meet the needs of the different sectors.
  In relation to the clauses dealing with approved driving instructors and related matters, we made it clear in our Road Safety Strategy that high quality driving instruction is a central aim. The amendments deliver key promises given in that strategy. At present, an applicant refused registration as an approved driving instructor or a person whose registration is
  1144
  revoked, may appeal to the Secretary of State and similar provisions apply in respect of licences issued to trainee instructors.
  Appeals are currently considered by a panel who make recommendations to the Secretary of State. But he is responsible for the final decision. We decided that it would be more in tune with the European Convention on Human Rights if appeals were decided by an independent tribunal. Amendment No. 298 will provide for that; namely, it will transfer jurisdiction for appeals to the transport tribunal. In parallel, Amendment No. 299 is intended to improve the way the registrar's decisions come into effect to provide for more timely and effective enforcement.
  These amendments move a considerable way towards providing a better and more robust system of training for driving instruction and for supervision and proper conduct of the driving instructor profession. Amendments Nos. 336, 341 and 343, which also come within this grouping, make minor consequential changes. I shall speak to other amendments in this group later. I beg to move.
  Earl Attlee: My Lords, I am grateful for the Minister's explanation of the amendments. I shall read carefully what he said. I have some amendments in this group but, before speaking to them, I remind your Lordships that I have an interest in that I am president of the Heavy Transport Association. In addition, I own and operate some preserved heavy vehicles which may be affected by some of the amendments and provisions of the Bill, in particular Amendment No. 307.
  Some of the amendments today cover a lot of ground and the extent of my comments will have to be commensurate. Amendment No. 312 provides for compulsory retraining for errant drivers. I will not repeat my Committee stage speech, but I was concerned that the Minister seemed to consider retraining to be a punishment and a matter for a Home Office review of penalties. Quite apart from the Home Secretary's questionable motoring record, I believe that retraining should be seen as something separate and additional to any penalties in order to reduce accidents in the future. I hope therefore that the Minister will retain full control of these matters himself, particularly in your Lordships' House.
  Amendment No. 320 is designed to allow the MoD's driving instructors to become civilian approved driving instructors, provided they qualified within the previous five years. In Committee the Minister was unsympathetic. In particular he referred to military discipline and unusual vehicles. Fierce military discipline and a fear culture are not conducive to the highly efficient driver training of the Defence School of Transport.
  Courtesy of the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, I recently visited the Defence School of Transport. The vehicles used for driver training appear to be perfectly ordinary trucks meeting the minimum test standards set by the Minister. It seemed to me that his resistance had much to do with retaining instructors in the MoD.

  1145
  The Minister's amendments provide a mandatory training requirement for driving test candidates and rightly seek to raise the standard of instructors. I shall not oppose them but I am anxious that officials at the DSA may be quietly empire building. If we are not careful, the starting standard for driving instructors could eventually be a psychology degree!
  My Amendments Nos. 329A and 329B seek to establish a league table so that students will be able to see how good their instructor is compared with others and have confidence in him. An additional advantage is that they will tend to reduce the number of hopeless or even dangerous attempts at the test. As drafted, my amendment does not compel a candidate to produce a certificate but it builds on the Minister's amendments.
  5 p.m.
  Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his kind comments in respect of my efforts to have improvement in driving instruction included in the Bill. He has been most generous because he has taken my original amendment further and I have gone through a sharp learning curve. One of the things I have learnt is that if you want to provide for Ministers to take action by way of regulations, you had better make certain you have a long list of specific actions which they may take by regulation, thereby excluding all the actions that they may not take by regulation. Therefore, you get through the various tests which are applied to legislation, particularly by your Lordships' committee.
  I am grateful for the amendments which put on the face of the Bill an important part of the Government's road safety strategy. That was my original motivation in bringing the matter before the House. I have only one question to ask. One of my objectives was to ensure that all driver instructors, whether of motorbikes, HGVs or whatever, would be registered. However, I do not see where that is reflected in the amendments. I may simply have missed the point and, if so, I would welcome the Minister's reassurance. In all other respects, I believe that his amendments are an admirable substitute for my own early efforts.
  I have some sympathy with the amendment tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, on driver retraining. I look forward to hearing the Minister's explanation of why that remains in the hands of the Home Office rather than with the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions.
  Lord Whitty: My Lords, perhaps I may first respond to the comments made about my amendments and then comment on the noble Earl's amendments. The amendments previously tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, related to the registration of professional drivers for all types of motor vehicle. We have not explicitly included that within the amendments but the Government hope to be able to deal with the matter at a later stage. The complication of doing what the noble Baroness wanted in that regard proved to be too great for us, even in a
  1146
  complicated amendment such as ours. I am afraid that the timescale defeated us but we have dealt with the priority areas of her previous amendment.
  As regards the respective powers and responsibilities of the Home Office and the DETR, mentioned by the noble Baroness and the noble Earl, my civil servants will always tell me that that is a matter for the Prime Minister and I that could not possibly comment. Nevertheless, there is a high degree of co-operation between my department and the Home Office on this matter. I hope that in this area, as in others, penalties are not simply a question of retribution, as the noble Earl seemed to understand, but also of improvement, education and retraining. There may be a better or more complementary form of treating an offence than the traditional form of penalty. Retraining and retesting will feature in the forthcoming Home Office consultation on Road Traffic Act penalties which will be published soon.
  Amendment No. 312 falls within the process to which I have referred; namely, it will form part of the Home Office consultation paper. As regards Amendment No. 320, which deals with MoD drivers, the MoD has not sought the provision nor does it want to see it in place. Its wish is for greater integration with the general arrangements rather than seeking exemptions for its staff and former staff. That is evidenced by the MoD encouraging its staff to join the voluntary register of lorry driving instructors that is maintained by the DSA. That means that they will pass the same entrance exams. Obviously, the MoD has a major interest in driver training and we need better links between it and the DSA. Incidentally, the DSA has a significant role in achieving a greater professionalism among driver instructors. It benefits them as a profession, it benefits their clients and it benefits road safety. However, in taking on instructors it is important that the co-operation delivers instructors who can meet the same standards as others. It may be that in most cases the MoD instructors will waltz through the provision, but so they should.
  Amendment No. 329 would prevent individuals being employed to ride motorcycles before they have passed the motorcycle test. That amendment is in the group, although the noble Earl did not refer to it specifically.
  Earl Attlee: My Lords, if the Minister refers to the amendment I shall not move it later.
  Lord Whitty: My Lords, that makes life easier. The amendment deals with the pizza delivery phenomenon when the people employed to ride "professionally" are on provisional licence. That happens frequently in relation to pizza delivery drivers but rarely in relation to couriers.
  Rather than accept the noble Earl's amendment, with which I have some sympathy, we have set up a task force following the road safety strategy to examine all work-related road safety issues. This issue is being considered in that context.

  1147
  Amendments Nos. 329A and 329B would have the effect of enabling instructors to certify that the candidates whom they present for the driving test are sufficiently trained to pass the test and that the certificates issued form the basis for collation of instructors' performance data. In a sense, that is transparency, but it is a delicate area. We have enabling powers for prescribing certification and we are committed to better informing the public and getting better information into the public domain about the quality of many different services.
  I do not believe that it is necessary to take specific powers but, before I encourage the noble Earl too much, perhaps I may point out that there are data protection and confidentiality issues to be dealt with before we can issue league tables. I am not certain that we want to take the driving instructor profession with us in these reforms, but this would be the most sensible place to begin. Other measures of quality control by the profession and in conjunction with the DSA would be preferable. I therefore hope that the noble Earl will not pursue his amendment.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 298 to 300:
  Before Clause 253, insert the following new clause—

  CHARGES WHERE WORKS UNREASONABLY PROLONGED

    REGISTER OF APPROVED INSTRUCTORS: DESTINATION OF APPEALS
    (".—(1) Section 131 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (appeals to Secretary of State by persons aggrieved by decision of registrar of approved driving instructors) is amended as follows.
    (2) In subsections (1) and (2), for "Secretary of State" substitute "Transport Tribunal".
    (3) In subsection (3)—

    (a) for "Secretary of State" substitute "Transport Tribunal", and

    (b) for "he thinks" substitute "they think".

    (4) After subsection (4) insert—
    "(4A) If the Tribunal consider that any evidence adduced on an appeal had not been adduced to the Registrar before he gave the decision to which the appeal relates, they may (instead of making an order under subsection (3) above)remit the matter to the Registrar for him to reconsider the decision."").
    Before Clause 253, insert the following new clause—

    TAKING EFFECT OF DECISIONS ABOUT INSTRUCTORS
    (".—(1) In section 127 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (application to retain name in register of approved instructors), after subsection (7) insert—
    "(7A) A decision to refuse an application shall take effect at the end of the period of fourteen days beginning with the day on which notice of the decision is given (or, if any appeal brought against the decision under the following provisions of this Part of this Act is previously withdrawn or dismissed, when the appeal is withdrawn or dismissed).",.
    and, in subsection (8), for "A decision to refuse an application shall" substitute "But the Registrar may, when giving notice of his decision to refuse the application, direct that the decision shall instead".
    (2) In section 128 of that Act (removal of name from register), after subsection (6) insert—
    "(6A) A decision to remove a name from the register shall take effect at the end of the period of fourteen days beginning with the day on which notice of the decision is given (or, if any appeal
    1148
    brought against thedecision under the following provisions of this Part of this Act is previously withdrawn or dismissed, when the appeal is withdrawn or dismissed).",.
    and, in subsection (7), for "A decision to remove a name from the register shall" substitute "But the Registrar may, when giving notice of his decision to remove the name from the register, direct that the decision shall instead".
    (3) In section 130 of that Act (revocation of licence for giving instruction in order to obtain practical experience), for subsection (6) substitute—
    "(5A) A decision to revoke a licence shall take effect at the end of the period of fourteen days beginning with the day on which notice of the decision is given (or, if any appeal brought against the decision under the following provisions of this Part of this Act is previously withdrawn or dismissed, when the appeal is withdrawn or dismissed).
    (6) But the Registrar may, when giving notice of his decision to revoke a licence, direct that (if an appeal under the following provisions of this Part of this Act is brought against the decision) it shall instead take effect—

    (a) if the appeal is withdrawn or struck out for want of prosecution, on the withdrawal or striking out of the appeal, or

    (b) if and when the appeal is dismissed, and not otherwise."

    (4) In section 131 of that Act (appeals against decisions of registrar), after subsection (4A) (inserted by section (Register of approved instructors: destination of appeals)) insert—
    "(4B) A person who is aggrieved by a decision of the Registrar not to give a direction under section 127(8), 128(7) or 130(6) of this Act may by notice in writing appeal to the Transport Tribunal within the period of ten days beginning with the day on which notice of the decision is given.
    (4C) The Transport Tribunal shall determine the appeal by either—

    (a) giving the direction concerned, or

    (b) dismissing the appeal,

    within the period of fourteen days beginning with the day on which notice of the decision is given.
    (4D) Where the Registrar has decided to refuse an application for the retention of a name in the register, to remove a name from the register or to revoke a licence granted under section 129 of this Act but either—

    (a) he gave a direction under section 127(8), 128(7) or 130(6) of this Act, or

    (b) the Transport Tribunal have given such a direction on appeal,

    he may by notice in writing apply to the Transport Tribunal for an order that the decision is to take effect immediately.
    (4E) The Transport Tribunal shall determine the Registrar's application by either granting or refusing the application, within the period of fourteen days beginning with the day on which it is made.
    (4F) The Transport Tribunal may only grant the application if they consider that a failure to do so might prejudicially affect—

    (a) the well-being of any person to whom the person concerned may give instruction in the driving of a motor car, or

    (b) the safety of road users."").

    Before Clause 253, insert the following new clause—

    TRAINING AND INSTRUCTORS: MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS
    (". Schedule (Driver training and driving instructors: minor and consequential amendments) makes minor and consequential amendments about driver training and driving instructors.").
    On Question, amendments agreed to.
    Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 301:
    Before Schedule 29, insert the following new schedule—
    ("SCHEDULE

  DRIVER TRAINING AND DRIVING INSTRUCTORS: MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS
    Introductory
    1. The Road Traffic Act 1988 has effect subject to the following amendments.

    Consequential amendments about driver training
    2. In section 89(6) (vehicles which may be driven by virtue of licence authorised by passing of test), for "For" substitute "Subject to regulations under section 99ZA of this Act, for".
    3. In section 97(1) (grant of licences), for "the following provisions of this section and section 92 of this Act" substitute "subsection (2) below, section 92 of this Act and regulations under section 99ZA of this Act".
    4. In section 98(2) (effect of full licence), after "below" insert "and to regulations under section 99ZA of this Act".
    5. —(1) Section 164 (power of constables to require production of evidence) is amended as follows.
    (2) For subsection (4A) substitute—
    "(4A) If regulations make provision for the evidencing of the successful completion of driver training courses or of a person's being within the exemption specified in subsection (2), or any exemption provided by virtue of subsection (3), of section 99ZA of this Act. a person driving on a road a motor vehicle which he—

    (a) is not authorised so to drive without having successfully completed such a course, or

    (b) would not be authorised so to drive apart from the exemption,

    may be required by a constable to produce prescribed evidence of the successful completion by him of such a course or of his being within the exemption."
    (3) In subsection (6), for "his certificate of completion of a training course for motor cyclists" substitute "prescribed evidence of the successful completion by him of a driver training course or of his being within an exemption".
    (4) In subsection (8A), for "a certificate of completion of a training course for motor cyclists" substitute "prescribed evidence of the successful completion of a driver training course or of being within an exemption".
    (5) In subsection (11), for the words from ""counterpart,"" to "completion"" substitute ""counterpart" and "provisional licence"".
    6. In section 194 (index of expressions) insert at the appropriate place—
    "Driver training course Section 99ZA".
    Tests of continued ability and fitness to give driving instruction
    7. In section 125(5) (continuing registration conditional on undergoing tests of continued ability and fitness to give instruction), for the words from "undergo" to the end substitute "submit himself for such test of continued ability and fitness to give instruction in the driving of motor cars (which may consist of practical and other means of assessment) as may be prescribed by regulations."
    8. In section 125B(6)(b) (similar provision in relation to disabled instructors), after "cars" insert "(which may consist of practical and other means of assessment)".
    9.—(1) Section 132 (regulations about examinations and tests) is amended as follows.
    (2) In subsection (1), for "such instruction" substitute "instruction in the driving of motor cars (or appropriate motor cars)".
    (3) In subsection (2)—

    (a) in paragraph (a) (obligation to provide vehicle)—

    (i) for "to any" substitute "for any".

    (ii) for "such a test of continued ability and fitness" substitute "any part of such a test of continued ability and fitness which consists of practical assessment", and

    (iii) for "the test" substitute "the practical test or assessment",

    (b) in paragraph (b) (fees)—

    (i) after "examination" insert ", or required to submit himself for such a test,", and

    (ii) after "that part" insert "or such tests,". and

    (c) in paragraph (c) (particulars), after "examination" insert ", or is required to submit himself for such a test".

    Disabled instructors: emergency control assessments
    10. In section 133A (assessments of disabled person's ability to control a motor car in an emergency), after subsection (4) insert—
    "(4A) Regulations may require a person who applies to undergo an emergency control assessment (or a part of such an assessment), or is required to submit himself for such an assessment, to pay a fee to the Secretary of State."

    Review by magistrates' court of examinations of instructors
    11.—(1) Section 133 (review of examinations) is amended as follows.
    (2) In subsection (1) (application to magistrates' court)—

    (a) for "submitted himself for any part of an examination of ability to give instruction in the driving of motor cars" substitute "undergone a relevant examination, or a part of such an examination", and

    (b) for "that part of the examination was properly conducted in accordance with regulations" substitute "the examination or part was properly conducted".

    (3) In subsection (2) (order for repayment of fees etc.)—

    (a) for "that part of the examination was not so" substitute "the examination or part was not properly", and

    (b) for "that part" substitute "the examination or part".

    (4) After subsection (3) insert—
    "(4) In this section "a relevant examination" means—

    (a) an examination of ability to give instruction in the driving of motor cars,

    (b) a test of continued ability and fitness to give instruction in the driving of motor cars (or appropriate motor cars), or

    (c) an emergency control assessment."

    Respondent in appeals about instructors
    12. In section 131 (appeals against decisions of registrar), insert at the end—
    "(4G) On an appeal under this section the respondent is the Registrar."").
    On Question, amendment agreed to.
    Earl Attlee Earl Attlee moved Amendment No. 302:
    After Clause 255, insert the following new clause—

    VEHICLES TO BE FITTED WITH INTEGRAL SAFETY PROP
    (" . In the Road Traffic Act 1988, in section 41, after subsection (4) there is inserted—
    "(4A) Regulations made under this section shall provide that any vehicle so constructed that it can be unloaded by part of the vehicle being tipped sideways or rearwards must be fitted with an integral safety prop."").
    The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 302 I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 307 and 308. Amendment No. 302 seeks to provide increased operator safety for vehicles equipped with tipping bodies by requiring the fitting of an integral safety prop. The bodies of these vehicles can be raised hydraulically, principally for unloading but also for maintenance and to deal with breakdowns. From time to time, very serious, even fatal, accidents occur when the body unexpectedly descends and traps the mechanic between the body and the chassis. From personal experience, I assure noble Lords that to work under or near an unsupported body is very stressful.
    Tipping vehicles enjoy a number of concessions, including exemption from the need for side guards or spray suppression equipment. I believe that an integral body prop is a small price to pay for eliminating a foreseeable cause of accidents. I accept that this is properly a matter for the Motor Vehicle (Construction and Use) Regulations. Does the Minister intend to amend those regulations, or will he allow the risk to continue and rely on the infinitely less specific provisions of the Health and Safety at Work Act?
    In Committee I moved Amendment No. 307, which would enable the Secretary of State to relax the requirement for type approval by means of orders rather than regulations. I also moved Amendment No. 308, which would create a new offence of failing to comply with the legal requirements regarding the movement of abnormal loads. The Minister was sympathetic to both amendments. While I appreciate the difficulty of tabling government amendments which are properly drafted by parliamentary counsel, the last opportunity to agree these amendments fast approaches. Has the Minister made a decision, and will he table his own amendments at Third Reading? I beg to move.
    Lord Whitty: My Lords, in relation to Amendments Nos. 307 and 308 the noble Earl makes a valiant stab at achieving what we both seek. I assure the noble Earl that if he withdraws his amendment we shall table our own at Third Reading which is not a million miles from his drafting. I believe that that amendment will achieve the objective.
    As to Amendment No. 308, to do it in the way proposed by the noble Earl has a number of problems and downsides. I believe that our draft of the previous amendment will achieve many of the objectives that lie behind Amendment No. 308.
    Amendment No. 302 effectively requires a prop to be fitted to rearwards or sideways-tipping vehicles. That would provide a safeguard when the vehicle was tipping should the hydraulics fail. There are arguments as to exactly how the provision should be phrased, but I do not believe that this Bill is the appropriate place to deal with the matter. As the noble Earl anticipated, the matter that he raises is more appropriately dealt with under either the Health and Safety at Work Act or the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations. We shall consider the possibility of doing
    1152
    something in that context. I believe that to include it here would be to stray some way from the Bill. Therefore, I prefer not to pursue that amendment.
    Earl Attlee: My Lords, I am grateful for the Minister's slight tease that possibly he will seek to amend the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations with regard to tipper props. We must see what happens in that regard. I am grateful for the Minister's support for Amendment No. 307 on type approval but disappointed by his response to Amendment No. 308. I recognise that there are insurmountable drafting problems. However, the Minister has been extremely accommodating to me in the Bill, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    5.15 p.m.
    Baroness Scott of Needham Market Baroness Scott of Needham Market moved Amendment No. 303:
    After Clause 255, insert the following new clause—

    OPERATING CENTRES FOR GOODS VEHICLES: LICENCE CONDITIONS
    (" . In section 13(5) of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995, after paragraph (d) there shall be inserted—
    "(dd) in permitting goods vehicles operators to establish an operating centre the traffic commissioner is satisfied that the centre is available, suitable and of sufficient capacity and must take into account the suitability of the local public road network for the establishment of such a centre."").
    The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I rise to move Amendment No. 303 standing in the names of my noble friends Lord Bradshaw and Lady Thomas. There is a curious anomaly in the granting of heavy goods vehicle operating licences. The power to grant those licences is vested in the traffic commissioner but he has no authority to take into account the suitability of the local road network. I have with me a copy of the guidance issued to traffic commissioners. That guidance states clearly that the local road network is a matter for the local highway authority. However, in most cases small-scale operating centres, particularly those in rural areas, do not require planning permission. This means that the only mechanism open to the local authority to lodge objections is to write to the traffic commissioner and raise the problem with him. However, he can take no action in the matter. That is a source of immense frustration to everyone concerned.
    I recall attending an inquiry in my area at which local parish councils were up in arms. Everyone understood the problems that could be caused. Although the traffic commissioner was sympathetic, he could do nothing about it. Even where planning permission is required, the current guidance does not allow local authorities to take into account the cumulative effect of traffic generation as a result of planning applications. As a local councillor, like a good number of colleagues I receive many complaints about lorries on rural roads. It is difficult to explain to people that the local authority is powerless to prevent a proliferation of small operating centres in their area.

    1153
    Lorries which use unsuitable routes cause great damage to road surfaces, kerbs and bridges. These vehicles are intimidating to other road users and are extremely noisy in quiet rural communities. Our amendment simply seeks to include within the remit of the traffic commissioner such matters as the suitability and the capacity of the local road network. Surely, that is a commonsense and long overdue measure. I beg to move.
    Lord Berkeley: My Lords, I rise to support what appears to be a logical amendment. This matter was discussed at length in Committee. I understand the problems if a number of lorries use a small country lane. Any new business which starts up will feel that perhaps it is being discriminated against if it is not allowed to add to what is already there, which may or may not be regarded as acceptable. It is extraordinary that at the moment no one can make a decision and stop additional traffic using these roads. Often I detect that governments do not believe that the traffic commissioners are the right people to make such decisions. However, they are very close to heavy goods vehicles and public transport. One would have thought that there was a good deal of merit in adopting an amendment like this to respond to concerns in many parts of the countryside.
    Viscount Goschen: My Lords, if the situation is as the noble Baroness describes, this amendment raises an important point about heavy goods vehicles and PSV operations being unsuitable in many areas. I look forward to hearing the response of the Minister.
    Earl Attlee: My Lords, I do not have significant difficulty with the amendment moved by the noble Baroness. However, I suspect the Minister will say that the traffic commissioner already has the necessary powers. I have tabled Amendment No. 303A which seeks to require an applicant for an operator's licence to display a notice on the outside of the proposed operating centre. This is intended to be similar to the procedure for planning applications. Not everyone reads statutory advertisements in local papers, but those who are most affected will see the notice on the premises. The proposal is an adaptation of an amendment moved by the Minister's noble friend, Lord Clinton-Davis, when he was opposition spokesman for transport. I recall that on that occasion the noble Lord unsuccessfully tested the opinion of the House. First, does the Minister's view differ from that of his noble friend? Secondly, is he satisfied in general with the operation of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995?
    Lord Whitty: My Lords, my noble friend Lord McIntosh says that if the noble Earl remembers that, it probably means that he voted against the amendment! He probably was not on the Conservative Benches at the time.
    Perhaps I may deal, first, with the noble Earl's amendment, Amendment No. 303A. Under the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act operators are
    1154
    required to advertise their licence applications in one or more local newspapers. The onus lies with the applicant to satisfy the traffic commissioners that he has placed the advertisement correctly and to decide which newspaper meets his purposes. If the traffic commissioner is not satisfied he may refuse the application.
    I am not sure whether this relates to the same period to which the noble Earl refers, but in 1996 there was a three-month feasibility trial of traffic area offices placing advertisements on behalf of applicants. That took place in two traffic areas. There was no significant increase in the number of representations received during the trial period. That indicates that, in the main, local residents are not unduly disadvantaged by the current system of placement of advertisements by applicants and would not be greatly advantaged by an alternative system. Therefore, I am not convinced that the noble Earl's amendment is necessary.
    I am not convinced either by the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, Amendment No. 303. We went over some of this ground in Committee. It is not, as the noble Earl says, that I am arguing that the traffic commissioners have all the powers that they need in this area. What I would argue is that one has to make a distinction between the role of the traffic commissioners and the role of the local authorities in these areas.
    Traffic commissioners have wide powers to decide whether an operating centre is suitable and of sufficient capacity for use by the goods vehicles that an operator plans to use from the site. In doing so, they will need to consider whether it has safe access and that it is in an acceptable location in terms of the environment and of residents in the immediate vicinity. But traffic commissioners can take the effect of the proposed operating centre into account only to the point at which the operating centre, or any private road from it, joins the public highway.
    It is for local authorities in determining planning applications to have regard to the effect such developments would have on the surrounding road network. There are also powers under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 to prohibit or restrict particular types of vehicles from using local roads on environmental grounds. Therefore, local authorities—the local highway authority—have powers to prohibit access along unsuitable roads to the operating centre where a more suitable access road is available. The traffic commissioners have the responsibility for looking at the safety, the environmental impact and the appropriateness of the centre in terms of the kind of lorries that will be using that centre.
    I think that if we blur the relative responsibilities between the traffic commissioners, the planning authorities and the highway authorities, we will end up with a real mish-mash. At the moment, the noble Baroness's questions are best dealt with by the local authorities involved, either through planning or

    1155
    through road traffic, and not by putting this requirement on the traffic commissioners, who have a different role.
    Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps he will respond to my noble friend's comment. Experience of dealing with these matters at a local authority level teaches one that there is a hole, as it were, between the highways authority's powers in these applications and the traffic commissioner's powers. That is the problem that we are trying to address. Someone needs the power to look at the applications in the context of a highways network. Under the legislation the highways department appears to be unable to do that.
    Lord Whitty: My Lords, the responsibilities are complementary. The traffic commissioner looks at the suitability of the depot. He looks at safety and environmental effects on the surrounding area. But the effect on the traffic is the responsibility of the highways authority. The planning of the centre and its impact on the surrounding area is the responsibility in most cases of the planning authority.
    Baroness Scott of Needham Market: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving away. It is often the case that the local authority does not need to grant planning permission because the centres are small— perhaps farms. Therefore, there will be only the traffic commissioner's proceedings going on. How will the local authority have the control the Minister says it should have when the traffic commissioner is specifically disbarred from taking that into account?
    Lord Whitty: My Lords, if it is not a planning application, then a planning issue does not arise. There may, however, still be a traffic issue which is a matter for the highways authority. In some cases the highways authority may not be the same as the planning authority. Therefore, we are talking about three potential areas here. Nevertheless, the traffic impact is covered by the responsibilities of the highways authority.
    If the noble Baroness is saying that there should be greater liaison between these various public bodies, I would not necessarily dissent. Clearly, there are parts of the country with which she or her noble friends are familiar where there has not been adequate liaison. This is not a question of powers, it is a question of co-operation.
    Baroness Scott of Needham Market: My Lords, I am grateful for that reply. However, I am rather frustrated that I have not been able to explain adequately that there is a gap in the legislation which prevents the network and the overall effect of these applications being considered.
    The Minister referred to the highways authority having its input, but it can do that only if a planning application is forthcoming. At that point it is allowed to have an input. But in many cases a planning application simply is not required.
    1156
    The Minister also mentioned that it is possible for the highways authority to place a traffic regulation order. But one would then be banning all the heavy vehicles from that route, even the ones that were already there and had perhaps been operating for many years. The issue here is what to do about new applications. However, I can see that I am getting nowhere. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    [Amendment No. 303A not moved.]
    Lord Berkeley Lord Berkeley moved Amendment No. 304:
    After Clause 255, insert the following new clause—

    COMPULSORY GOODS VEHICLE WEIGHING SCHEME
    (" . In the Road Traffic Act 1988, after section 41 insert—
    "Compulsory goods vehicle weighing scheme.
    41ZA.—(1) The Secretary of State may make regulations requiring the weighing of any goods vehicle using a major road freight facility, port or premises and the provision of a weight report to the driver of the vehicle.
    (2) In particular regulations made under subsection (1) may make provision with respect to—

    (a) the method of weighing such goods vehicles;

    (b) the form and contents of the weight report;

    (c) the number of such reports that must be provided to the driver;

    (d) the driver signing and returning a prescribed number of such reports to the operator of the facility;

    (e) the keeping of copies of such reports by the operator of the facility; and

    (f) the production of such copies by the operator on the request of prescribed public authorities.

    (3) A weight report provided in accordance with regulations made under this section may be produced in evidence in any proceedings for an offence under this Part relating to the weight of a goods vehicle.
    (4) In this section "major road freight facility, port or premises" means any such facility, port or premises—

    (a) having facilities for the carriage of goods by road, and

    (b) having an annual throughput of more than 25,000 goods vehicles each exceeding 30,000 kilograms gross vehicle weight,

    or more than one such facility, port or premises where they are under common management, control or ownership, share a common access to the highway and together have that annual throughput.".").
    The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise to move Amendment No. 304 standing in my name and in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, and the noble Earl, Lord Attlee.
    In Committee the same group of noble Lords proposed this scheme for the compulsory weighing of HGVs leaving premises where the number was 10,000 lorries a year. It did not find great favour with the Minister. One of the main reasons was that there were too many sites and it would therefore be too much of an imposition on the industry.
    We have consulted further. We have returned with an amendment that allows the Secretary of State to make regulations which require the compulsory weighing of HGVs. The Minister does not have to, but we hope that he will accept the amendment. I see this

    1157
    as part of a package of measures which are aimed at making the drivers of road freight vehicles obey the law better. Many noble Lords have tabled amendments. I am grateful to the Minister for accepting so many of them, whether they were proposed from this side of the House or by the Liberal Democrats or the Conservatives. This is yet another one.
    Is there a problem with overweight lorries? I have had the benefit of reading the latest government transport statistics for 2000. There is a good deal of good information in them. I find that 400,000 goods vehicles are registered in the country. They average 100 miles per trip. In a Written Answer of 20th August I was told that 64,000 HGVs were weighed by the vehicle inspectorate last year and that 5 per cent were found to be overloaded by more than 5 per cent. Five per cent of 400,000 lorries is 20,000 lorries. If they operate for 300 days a year, there could be 6 million offences a year. I am sure that better statistics are available, but that shows the scale of the problem. I calculate that a lorry is at risk of being checked every six years. A Written Answer of 4th August showed that the average line for the offence is £300. So a driver has a good chance of getting away with it for six years; and when he is caught, he is fined £300.
    As we know, over-weight lorries cause more road damage and more accidents. Transport 2000 has recently published a leaflet which states that 17 per cent of fatal accidents are caused by HGVs; and, of course, the heavier the lorry, the worse the problem. How can the law be better enforced? In Committee I mentioned a portable weighbridge, which my noble friend the Minister thought was quite a good idea.
    We then come to the question of how many sites. We have taken on board what my noble friend said and we think that sites with an annual throughput of more than 25,000 goods vehicles is probably about right. We do not have the statistics on how many lorries go into distribution centres. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, has been trying to get the figures, but they are not available. If we use, as an example, the ports, Aberdeen, Tyne and Ipswich would be below the threshold but Hull, Portsmouth, Dover, Ramsgate, Felixstowe and London would be above it. The bigger ports would have to weigh the lorries but the smaller ones would not. The regulations we propose would require the facility operator to give the driver a printout of the lorry weight. If he then chose to go out and break the law, he would face prosecution.
    I conclude by asking: why not? Why allow 6 million offences a year to be committed, with the risk of being caught once in six years and being fined £300? I am sure that the drafting of the amendment could be improved. I hope that my noble friend will at least consider the matter and perhaps do us the honour of accepting the principle of the amendment and coming back at Third Reading with better drafting. I beg to move.
    5.30 p.m.
    Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, I should like briefly to add my voice to that of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, on this matter. It is clear that overloaded or wrongly loaded lorries are a danger to the safety of other drivers. They cause far more damage to the road surface than correctly loaded lorries and they give the whole road haulage trade a bad image, a matter to which the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, has referred on a number of occasions. What is proposed in the amendment is an extremely important move. I hope that the Minister will look sympathetically on it. The proper weighing of heavy goods vehicles, so that they are soundly and correctly loaded, would contribute to better road safety, a point close to the hearts of noble Lords on all sides of the House.
    Earl Attlee: My Lords, I have put my name to the amendment. In Committee, some amusing defects of the original amendment were identified by the Minister. There is a view that overloading is not the problem that it once was and that the advent of 44-tonne vehicles will mean that more vehicles will tend to "bulk out" rather than "gross out". In addition, much of the traffic running at or near maximum gross weight is under the control of reputable and scrupulous operators. Good examples are supermarkets, parcel companies and tanker operators. Statistics show only a small percentage of vehicles to be overloaded. However, if operators who are not prone to overloading are extracted from the calculations, the picture might become rather different. I am sure that the Minister is aware of that and that a large proportion of over-weight traffic emanates from ports. For a variety of reasons, ports cannot be targeted on their own, so the net has to be cast wider. I differ from the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, on the level of fines for overloading offences. From what I have read, the fines are often well over £1,000.
    I do not know what the noble Lord plans to do with the amendment, but if he returns with it at a later stage, it may benefit from a specific provision allowing the Secretary of State to exempt certain locations or facilities.
    Lord Berkeley: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down, perhaps I may refer him to a Written Answer of Friday 4th August, which states that the average fine for the offence last year was £303.
    Earl Attlee: Yes, my Lords, but that might apply to a very small vehicle.
    Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I appreciate that the amendment has been drafted with the word "may" rather than the word "shall" so that the powers would be permissive, but I have to say that it is a good, sound rule of legislation that one does not take powers which one does not intend to use. So I shall explain why the Government do not believe that the proposed scheme would be a good use of resources.

    1159
    I agree with my noble friend Lord Berkeley that it is important that hauliers should obey the law. We should look at the different reasons why they should obey the law. I suggest that there are three reasons: first, safety; secondly, the damage to roads and bridges; and, thirdly, the issue of unfair competition.
    It is certainly true that vehicles which are run over their design weight have the potential for being more dangerous than vehicles which are run within their design weight. But the design weight is not the same as the legal limit. Many lorries have a design weight that is higher than their legal limit. It may well be that they are running over the legal limit without running over their design weight and are not therefore, in themselves, more dangerous than lorries which are running within their legal limit. Furthermore, as the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, pointed out, many vehicles "bulk out" before they "gross out". In other words, if a lorry is carrying cornflakes it cannot be filled so that it is heavier than its legal weight. I understand that that applies to about two-thirds of the lorries on the roads.
    The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, referred to reputable operators. There is not a great deal of point in weighing lorries used by reputable operators. In a computer-controlled logistics system, the computer knows what each component of a load weighs and will not permit a lorry to be overloaded. Even with less sophisticated systems, there is physical weighing, which ensures that lorries are not over-weight. Safety is, and must be, the first issue but I suggest that there are limits on the safety risks of vehicles which are over their legal limit.
    The issue of road and bridge damage is enormously important. In all the discussions that have taken place about the increase from 40 tonnes to 44 tonnes, we have had a great deal of debate on gross vehicle weight and axle weight. I shall not go over that issue. However, I do not want to underestimate the importance of that or of ensuring that those who obey the law are not discriminated against by the neglect of law enforcement. We have to strike a balance. Does the proposal provide an effective way of dealing with the fairly small proportion of dodgy operators carrying the heavier loads?
    The scheme would affect many sites. I appreciate that the amendment refers to major facilities and suggests that only those with an annual throughput of more than 25,000 goods vehicles, each exceeding 30,000 kilograms gvw, should be included. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, has admitted and the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, has discovered, there is no way of telling how many would be affected.
    Owners of such sites would have to have specific means of weighing installed. All lorries over the specified weight would have to be weighed and a record kept of that weighing. A lorry visiting several sites on a round trip, picking up or dropping off a load at each, would have to be weighed at each stop. Lorries with identical loads on each journey would have to be
    1160
    weighed each time. Furthermore, the system would apply indiscriminately to all lorries, whatever load they carried.
    As I have said, most of the vehicles that would be affected by the amendment belong to larger operators; namely, those who run 25,000 lorries of over 30 tonnes each in a year. Generally it is those operators who are the most reputable and who already have in place the best systems for ensuring that lorries are not overweight. The ones that are in danger of being overweight would have less chance of being caught by the amendment.
    It is also difficult to tell how much such a scheme would cost. The capital cost of typical weighing equipment and associated structures is £20,000— although I have read what was said in Committee about mobile platforms. We can only guess at how many sites would be affected, but clearly the capital costs would be high. Furthermore, the costs of operation, congestion, pollution, delay and enforcement could also be significant.
    I do not deny that overloading is a problem, but it is a problem more of road damage and unfair competition than of safety. Safety is and must remain the chief focus of our enforcement activity. That activity must be developed so that it becomes as effective as possible in improving safety. The Government, with the help and support of the industry, is developing an enforcement strategy based on targeting and concentrating on the most serious problems. I am afraid that this amendment, although it varies substantially from the one which was moved in Committee, is too untargeted to help us in that approach.
    Lord Berkeley: My Lords, I have listened carefully to what my noble friend has said. Frankly, some of his comments have surprised me. My noble friend said that this is not a problem of safety. If a lorry is above its design weight, it stands to reason that it will be less safe than if it is below its design weight. Of course, I do not deny that many lorries are operated safely—and, indeed, many lorries are piled up with cornflakes. However, a great many other lorries operate above their design weight, whether their limit is 41 tonnes or 44 tonnes. That can damage roads and bridges.
    My noble friend did not have anything to say about unfair competition and the fact that, while only a small proportion of the total fleet operates illegally, those who do undercut those who obey the law. Indeed, I suggest this may be in part one of the causes of the fuel crisis because a minority of the smaller operators do break the law and thus undercut other small operators. That may be why the industry is facing so many financial problems. I accept that there are reputable operators, but there are also those who are not reputable. I do not accept that the dodgy operators form only a small proportion of the total fleet. Perhaps

    1161
    my noble friend would write to me and tell me what is the proportion of illegal operators and how that proportion is derived from the available statistics.
    Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, that is an unknowable statistic. If we knew that a dodgy operator was breaking the law, we would prosecute him.
    Lord Berkeley: My Lords, in that case, I am not sure that my noble friend can assert that only a small proportion of operators are dodgy. Indeed, 5 per cent of a very big number of operators are caught. Evidence has shown that the vehicle inspectors, who are good at their job, can target those who are likely to be dodgy. I believe that that figure demonstrates that quite a high proportion operate against the law.
    I understand that my noble friend does not wish to accept the amendment. I shall read carefully what he has said, but for the moment I shall withdraw the amendment and reserve the right to return to the matter at a later stage.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    [Amendment No. 304A not moved.]
    Clause 256 [Vehicles subject to regulation as private hire vehicles]:
    5.45 p.m.
    Earl Attlee Earl Attlee moved Amendment No. 305:
    Leave out Clause 256.
    The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 305. I have concerns regarding Clause 256 which I hope the Minister can allay.
    Clause 256 was inserted by another place as an amendment and is designed to stop companies from operating small PSVs—those with under nine seats—under the Public Service Vehicles Act 1981. The PSV licensing regime is different from the private hire vehicle licensing regime but no less rigorous. Can the Minister tell the House what is the thinking that lies behind the clause?
    Is the Minister aware that some local authorities will approve a Ford Galaxy for private hire vehicle work, while others will not? Is there any risk of local authorities straying into making decisions that more properly should be made by officials from his department; namely, are they straying into the area of construction and use regulations? I beg to move.
    Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am a little surprised by this amendment, although I understand that a certain degree of agitation has accompanied it. The amendment would delete Clause 256. If we were to accept it, it would leave behind a legal loophole and an anomaly in the law on private hire licensing, one which has caused considerable concern. Perhaps I should explain the background to the matter.
    The arrangements for licensing small buses on the one hand and private hire vehicles on the other are different. Bus licensing is a matter for the traffic commissioners, while private hire licensing is a matter
    1162
    for local authorities. As the law currently stands, a small bus licensed by the traffic commissioners can legally be operated as a private hire vehicle outside the particular safeguards and requirements of the private hire licensing system. Recently it has become evident that there has been a growing number of cases where operators are doing just that. We have received strong representations that it is anomalous that private hire licensing can be got round in this way. It was put to us that private hire vehicles should be licensed as such and not as buses and that, in particular, there were safety implications if they were not. This clause has been widely welcomed by local government, the traffic commissioners, the trades unions and others who were concerned at what they saw as a loophole in the existing law.
    Essentially, the clause ensures that if a small vehicle is used as a private hire vehicle it must be licensed as such. One small exception is provided to that principle. We recognise that there are cases where well-established conventional bus operators have a few small vehicles which may be used as buses to provide feeder services and so forth. But these vehicles may also be used for private hire work. For example, they may be hired out for outings at the weekend. It would have been wrong to put up a barrier to a bus operator offering that kind of service. That exception is therefore provided for in the clause. In general, we think that private hire vehicles should be licensed as such and not as buses.
    The noble Earl stated that local authorities have different licensing policies. Indeed, some different decisions may be taken between different local authorities. However, they are based on broad requirements. Of course there is a right of appeal against a local authority decision tinder the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976. That appeal can be made to the magistrates. Those who feel disgruntled by a decision reached by a local authority—say, because that decision is incompatible with one made by a neighbouring local authority—can take the matter to appeal.
    I am aware of the concerns which have been expressed by the PSV Operators' Association. However, I am not convinced by the points made by the association. It points out that services run by small vehicles can meet a need which is not catered for either by bus operators or by the taxi trade. That may well be so, but the new clause does not prevent a small operator from performing that role. The clause merely provides that if a service of this kind is being operated, it is a private hire service and it must be licensed as such, with all the associated safety and other checks.
    As I have said, I am not convinced by the case that has been put and I believe that our earlier amendment, which is now Clause 256, covers what would otherwise be a lacuna in the regulatory framework.
    Earl Attlee: My Lords, the Minister should not be surprised that I moved the amendment. Can the Minister explain why the then Minister, Glenda Jackson, wrote to Miss Angela Smith MP in October 1997, stating that the Government believed that the

    1163
    PSV licensing regime provided an adequate alternative in other respects to the PHV licensing regime and that there were no plans to remove the option?
    Lord Whitty: My Lords, I thought I had just explained that. A number of representations have been made to us that in the past two years there has been a growing number of cases. The letter to which the noble Earl referred was written more than three years ago. The situation has clearly changed since then. A number of cases which require some further action have been drawn to our attention and to the attention of local authorities.
    Earl Attlee: My Lords, I shall study carefully what the Minister said. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    [Amendments Nos. 306 to 310 not moved.]
    Baroness Thomas of Walliswood Baroness Thomas of Walliswood moved Amendment No. 311:
    After Clause 256, insert the following new clause—
    ("USE OF WEIGHT RESTRICTED ROUTES BY GOODS VEHICLES

    LAWFUL USE OF WEIGHT RESTRICTED ROUTES BY GOODS VEHICLES
    It shall be incumbent on the driver of a goods vehicle using a weight restricted route to provide evidence on demand to any police officer or member of the Vehicle Inspectorate or Trading Standards Office that he is using the route lawfully.").
    The noble Baroness said: My Lords, we return to an amendment which was debated in Committee. It concerns the illegal use of weight restricted routes by goods vehicles. In Committee, there was a long and learned discussion about signage and the effect of signage in making the role of the police easier by enabling them to stop and successfully prosecute the drivers of vehicles which are in the wrong place.
    The main reason I am bringing back the amendment is that we also discussed at some length the ability of the police to prosecute the drivers of heavy goods vehicles travelling through weight restricted areas. At that time, the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, said that the police were fully satisfied with the powers they had. Since that time, my noble friend Lord Bradshaw has sent evidence to the Minister about the dissatisfaction of at least one local police force with the situation as it now obtains. It indicates that the law is quite inadequate to enable the police to follow and prosecute the drivers of vehicles passing through weight restricted areas.
    Almost no one in this country, wherever living, can be unaware of the misery that can be caused by heavy goods vehicles rat-running through residential areas. It is particularly galling if this is done over weight restricted routes where the vehicles should not be at all.
    1164
    If the police find themselves unable successfully to prosecute such drivers, we need a change in the law. I beg to move.
    Lord Swinfen: My Lords, the noble Baroness has made an extremely good point. I only wish she had included width restricted routes in her amendment as well as weight restricted routes.
    Lord Whitty: My Lords, we had a fairly wide-ranging debate on this at an earlier stage, in which the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, participated. He claimed, as has the noble Baroness, that the present law is not enforceable and that it is difficult to prove an offence if a matter comes to court. He has indeed cited a police officer to that effect.
    Our information and our view is that the power is not necessary. That is a view supported by ACPO, the Association of Chief Police Officers, which we consulted about this proposal, and by the Crown Prosecution Service. There may be some local problems, but I do not believe that it is a national problem.
    The present position is that if a lorry is stopped by the police having passed a sign indicating a weight restriction prohibition, the onus is on the driver to show that he was complying with the qualifying plate on the sign which allows exemptions to the prohibition. Any driver who was unable to give a satisfactory planation—for example, by producing a delivery note and so on—would face the prospect of receiving a fixed penalty notice. It is, therefore, in the interests of the driver to show the police that he was not committing an offence by producing that evidence. We see no reason to change the law in that respect.
    I accept that there can be a problem with the abuse of weight restrictions, which are frequently introduced for environmental reasons, especially where they prevent lorries taking rat runs through residential areas. But the biggest problems arise where these restrictions have an "except for access" exemption. "Access" can mean stopping to buy a paper. A driver who does that before or after being checked by the police would still be "using the route lawfully" because he had a lawful reason for requiring access. But there would be no documentation that the driver could produce,
    "to provide evidence on demand".
    as the amendment requires, for what would have been an ad hoc decision to go to buy a newspaper. In such cases, the police would have to follow the vehicle through the area to confirm that an offence had been committed, which does not seem a particularly sensible use of police resources.
    The problem with these exemptions lies, in a sense, in the way in which they are phrased. "Except for access" is not a very useful exemption. That is why for the past 10 years my department has recommended to local authorities that they use the "except for loading" exemptions. These restrictions are much easier for the police to enforce because the vehicle has to be collecting from or delivering to a property in the

    1165
    restricted area. The onus is then on the driver to produce a delivery note or other means to show that he had a genuine reason for collecting from or delivering to that area. The police could therefore enforce such an order by stopping lorries which they felt did not have that evidence from leaving a restricted area.
    The amendment also envisages powers being given to vehicle inspectors and trading standards officers. But, of course, neither can stop vehicles. That is a power which is vested in the police and that is where it should stay.
    Although I appreciate the concerns behind the amendment, we do not believe that this is a widespread problem. If local authorities were to follow our advice on how they should provide notices of exemptions, it would be much easier for the police to enforce them. We all share the objective of better compliance, but I am riot sure that the amendment would lead to that. I hope that the noble Baroness will not pursue her amendment.
    Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, the Minister has given a detailed reply. Pending further consideration, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    [Amendment No. 312 not moved.]
    Earl Attlee Earl Attlee moved Amendment No. 313:
    After Clause 256, insert the following new clause—

    CONSTRUCTION AND USE REGULATIONS: CEMENT CARRYING VEHICLES
    (" . After section 41(5) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 there shall be inserted—
    "(5A) Regulations under this section shall provide that articulated tanker vehicles designed and used to carry cement can be operated at 48,000 kilograms gross train weight."").
    The noble Earl said: My Lords, I have tabled the amendment in order to make some sense of a Parliamentary Question in another place to which the Minister's honourable friend, Mr Hill, gave a holding answer on 10th July. The question related to the inter-modal competition organised by the shadow SRA earlier in the year. In response to the Question of my honourable friend Mr Jenkin, the Minister wrote:
    "The cement road tanker to be conveyed on the intermodal wagons will have a maximum weight of 40 tonnes to which the traction unit would be added".—[Official Report, Commons, 12/7/00; cot. WA563.]
    A three-axle, 44-tonne tractor will weigh about eight tonnes; therefore, the gross train weight will have to be 48 tonnes. Hence the reason for my amendment. At this point I hasten to add that I would be in deep, deep trouble if the Minister accepted my amendment. I do not believe that anyone is proposing to increase the maximum gross train weight to 48 tonnes.
    The Minister, Mr Hill, answered a further searching question from my honourable friend on 24th July. My concern is, first, that the figures given do not add up. Secondly, the payload of the road trailer was given as 25.8 tonnes, but the Blue Circle company wrote to me recently claiming that it could achieve a payload of
    1166
    around 30 tonnes. The question the Minister has to answer is, who is right: his honourable friend or Blue Circle?
    Since tabling these amendments, I have received some interesting but worrying briefings and interest from the trade press. First, there is the question of the organisation of the competition. I have no problem with the competition in terms of innovation, but the time-scale set was so short as to appear only to favour a solution that was already more or less in existence. Furthermore, is it correct that the winner was selected without ensuring that the safety case could be made to the relevant authorities? The cement trailer appears to be extremely light, even for road, let alone rail use. Is the Minister confident that it is robust enough and could be certified for rail use? Wet leaves are one thing, but wet cement would be something else again!
    Finally, what is the status of the Mega 3 rail wagon that is used to carry the cement and other road-going trailers? Is it registered with Railtrack for use on the national rail network? How many of these wagons are in existence and are there any technical difficulties with the wagon itself?
    There is no doubt that the piggyback system makes a great deal of sense. I hope that it will be possible to make some of the loading gauge and other enhancements sought by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. If the Minister cannot answer all my questions tonight, I shall not be surprised; however, I hope that I shall receive a letter from him before the next stage of the Bill. I beg to move.
    6 p.m.
    Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the amendment would add a new clause after Section 41(5) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 to allow for the operation of articulated tanker vehicles, designed and used to carry cement, at a gross train weight of 48,000 kilograms.
    I do not think that I need to go through the history of how we have announced that we shall allow vehicles of up to 44 tonnes from 1st February 2001, except to say that the decision followed 20 years of discussion and work undertaken by the Commission for Integrated Transport, which conducted the most thorough investigation into the effects of 44-tonne lorries for 20 years. The balance between the damage that might be caused and the benefit of a reduced number of vehicles is part of that investigation.
    Now, having taken a decision to allow 44-tonne lorries, we have a proposal to allow 48-tonne lorries. I really do not think that it is reasonable to expect that we should move on in that way. There seems to be no end to this process.
    To meet the general increase to 44 tonnes, goods vehicles will have to be equipped with road-friendly suspension and have six axles, three on each unit. The cement carrying vehicles would have no difficulty in meeting these requirements. However, the weight of the tri-axle on a semi-trailer would not he permitted to exceed 24,000 kilograms. I am informed that, in practice, an articulated vehicle weighing 48 tonnes

    1167
    would be required to operate with a trailer tri-axle weight close to 27,000 kilograms if it was to present any goods carrying advantage. I should also say that UK road and bridge infrastructure has not been specifically designed to allow this additional axle weight.
    I must also add that EU vehicles are not permitted by EC Directive 96/53/EEC to operate freely within all member states with tri-axle weights above 24,000 kilograms. The use of the vehicles proposed by this clause may, therefore, be viewed by other member states as a barrier to trade.
    The noble Earl asked a number of detailed questions, including a reference to correspondence which no doubt I should have seen, but I am afraid that I have not. He suggested, rightly, that I should not be able to answer all his questions on the spot. I shall write to the noble Earl, and I shall certainly do so before the next stage of the Bill, which takes place next Thursday.
    We have decided to allow six-axle 44-tonne lorries only after taking careful account of the fact that these lorries cause less road wear than existing 40-tonne, five-axle vehicles. We have balanced carefully the saving in lorry miles against the effect on rail freight. We do not propose simply to move the goal-posts by another four tonnes, as would be provided by the amendment.
    Earl Attlee: My Lords, I am grateful for the Minister's response to the detail of my amendment. The only point I would make about 44-tonne vehicles is that there have been three detailed reports on whether we should go for 44 tonnes: there was the Armitage report in the 1980s, the report of a Select Committee of this House, and now the report of the Committee for Integrated Transport. All have concluded that we should go for 44-tonne vehicles. I look forward to the Minister's letter. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Earl Attlee Earl Attlee moved Amendment No. 314:
    After Clause 256, insert the following new clause—

    CONDITIONS OF USE OF LICENCE
    (" .—(1) In section 92 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, after subsection (9) there is inserted—
    "(9A) This section does not apply to a licence issued under the provisions of section 97(1)(e) of this Act."
    (2) In section 97 of that Act, after subsection (1)(d) there is inserted—
    "(e) requires a licence that at the time of issue does not authorise him to drive any class of vehicle,"
    (3) In section 98 of that Act, after subsection (1)(d) there is inserted—
    "(e) if issued under section 97(1)(e) of this Act, not authorise any class of vehicle that can be driven".").
    The noble Earl said: My Lords, the DVLA now issues driving licences of similar size to a credit card and with a photograph incorporated. This type of licence will be useful as a form of identification as well
    1168
    as a driving licence. In certain states in the USA it is possible to be granted a driving licence which provides no entitlement to drive a vehicle. In the US, a driving licence is the de facto ID card. Does the Minister see the UK as heading that way, or are we doing something different? What is the long-term policy in this country?
    A person who is severely disabled may not be able to be granted any driving licence. In the future, that would put him at a disadvantage compared to the rest of society. However, I suspect that the Minister would have less sympathy for someone who was disqualified. I beg to move.
    Lord Whitty: My Lords, the noble Earl asks what is our long-term policy. It is that a driving licence is a driving licence. The driving licence is an entitlement to drive, not an identity card.
    The move to a card-style driving licence, while it will take time to work through the system, will provide standardisation and will make matters much more convenient but it should not be regarded as an overriding identity card. I know that certain noble Lords on all Benches except the Liberal Democrat Benches would like to see identity cards. That is not the Government's policy and it is not one that we intend to introduce by stealth, as noble Lords opposite might say, by enhancing the role of the driving licence. Our priority is to enforce licensing law and prevent unlicensed driving—not to turn a driving licence into an identity card. Therefore, I am afraid that I do not sympathise with the amendment.
    Earl Attlee: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    [Amendments Nos. 315 and 315A not moved.]
    Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 316:
    After Clause 257, insert the following new clause—

  Appeals relating to London service permits

    LONDON SERVICE PERMITS: APPEALS
    .—(1) Section 189 of the Greater London Authority Act 1999 (appeals against decisions of Transport for London about London service permits) is amended as follows.
    (2) In subsections (2) and (4) (appeals to be made to Mayor), for "appeal to the Mayor" substitute "make an appeal".
    (3) In subsection (5) (appeal to be made within 28 days of issue of notice of decision), insert at the end ": but, subject to that, the procedure for the making of appeals under this section shall be such as the Secretary of State may by regulations prescribe."
    (4) For subsection (6) (Mayor to refer appeal to panel appointed by him) substitute—
    "(6) An appeal under this section shall be heard by a panel of persons appointed by the Lord Chancellor for the purpose of hearing such an appeal ("an appeal panel")."
    (5) For subsection (7) (charging by Mayor of fees for appeals) substitute—
    "(7) The Secretary of State may make regulations providing for the charging of reasonable fees in respect of appeals under this section."
    (6) In subsection (9) (payment by Mayor of fees and expenses of panel members), for "Mayor" substitute "Secretary of State".
    (7) For subsections (11) to (13) (power of panel to report to Mayor who may issue appropriate guidance or directions to Transport for London) substitute—
    "(11) An appeal panel which has heard an appeal against a decision may—

    (a) upheld the decision,

    (b) quash the decision, or

    (c) substitute for the decision such other decision which Transport for London had power to make as appears to the appeal panel to be appropriate.

    (12) An appeal panel which has heard an appeal may make an order about payment of the costs of the appeal; and such an order may require that Transport for London pay to the person who made the appeal a sum equal to the whole or part of any fee paid in accordance with regulations under subsection (7) above."
    (8) In section 420(7) of that Act (regulations subject to negative Parliamentary procedure), after the entry relating to any provision contained in Chapters I to IV or VI of Part III, insert—
    "section 189;".").
    The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment. I shall speak also to Amendment No. 339.
    These amendments are necessary to resolve a potential incompatibility with the Human Rights Act which we have identified in Section 189 of the Greater London Authority Act 1999.
    Under the GLA Act, bus operators who wish to provide local bus services outside the Transport for London bus network can apply to TfL for a London bus service permit. We expect that the main users of the permit system will be operators of sightseeing tour services. Operators of commercial cross-boundary bus services, some scheduled coach services and some work and school services may also need to apply for a permit.
    Section 189 allows bus operators to appeal to the Mayor against the refusal, suspension or revocation by TfL of a permit. Such appeals would be heard by the Mayor, who appoints the TfL board and can direct its policy. The Mayor may also be a board member himself. I am concerned, therefore, that the Mayor cannot be considered an independent appeals body, which leads me to conclude that Section 189 of the Greater London Authority Act 1999 might contravene Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights; that is, the right to a fair trial.
    The legislation came into effect on 3rd July. However, many bus operators are continuing to run services under the previous system until their licences expire, and we understand there have been no appeals so far. However, once operators of all non-TfL bus services are required to apply for a permit, there is an increased likelihood that appeals will be made under Section 189. We do not want to paralyse the new system, so we believe that we have little choice but to solve the problem by amending this Bill.
    We believe that the new clause will fully satisfy the requirements of the Human Rights Act. Its main purpose would be to amend Section 189 to provide for appeals to be heard by an independent panel appointed by the Lord Chancellor. The panel would be given the same functions and powers as had been given
    1170
    to the mayor in this matter, and its decisions would be binding on the mayor. The panel members' fees and expenses would be paid by the Secretary of State, who could set fees to offset the costs. A consequential amendment is also required to Clause 266.
    I should mention that the mayor is required by the 1999 Act to prepare and publish a guidance document setting out his policy criteria for granting permits for these services. TfL must have regard to that guidance when issuing permits and so the appeal panel will have to take its contents into account when reaching its decision. I hope that the House will agree that this amendment is essential if the regulation of non-TfL bus services in London is to work effectively. I beg to move.
    Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I am sure that the mayor would not want to be the cause of a problem under the Human Rights Act. There are faint bells ringing in my head now that I have heard the Minister's explanation of this new clause. I seem to recall that there was certainly some debate during the course of the proceedings on the GLA legislation regarding the mayor's position as chair of TfL, in the event of some such conflict arising. As we now have the opportunity to put matters right, can the Minister confirm that the whole of the Act has been trawled to ensure that there are no other problems that ought to be dealt with at this stage?
    Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, as I am wearing my transport hat at present and have only transport advice open to me, I do not believe that I can give the noble Baroness the wide-ranging assurance that she seeks.
    Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, perhaps I did not make myself clear: because the mayor is able to act as chair of TfL, the transport area is the one about which I am concerned.
    Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, it is my understanding that this is the only potential conflict that we have discovered in the transport area. I commend the amendment to the House.
    On Question, amendment agreed to.
    6.15 p.m.
    Baroness Scott of Needham Market Baroness Scott of Needham Market moved Amendment No. 317:
    After Clause 257, insert the following new clause—

    LOCAL TRANSPORT PLAN AND ROAD TRAFFIC
    (" .—(1) As part of their local transport plan, and subject to guidance issued by the appropriate national authority, a local transport authority may designate any residential road within their area as a quiet lane.
    (2) Designations of home zones or quiet lanes may be made for any or all of the following purposes—

    (a) improving the environment;

    (b) improving the safety and security of the community in whose area the home zone is situated;

    1171

    (c) improving safety on rural road, especially for pedestrians, pedal cyclists and horse riders, by reducing the risk of accidents;

    (d) protecting the character and distinctiveness of the countryside from damage by traffic.

    (3) At any future time the appropriate national authority may introduce regulations with regard to home zones or quiet lanes which may have any or all of the following effects—

    (a) giving pedestrians and pedal cyclists precedence on any highway in a home zone, and pedestrians, pedal cyclists and horse riders precedence on any quiet lane;

    (b) requiring the driver of any mechanically powered vehicle to accord such precedence to any pedestrian, pedal cyclist or horse rider;

    (c) requiring pedestrians, cyclists and horse riders to show reasonable behaviour towards any mechanically powered vehicle, and not wilfully to obstruct its passage;

    (d) requiring physical or other measures to reduce traffic speeds to no more than 10 mph. in a road designated as a home zone, or 20 mph. on a designated quiet lane.").

    The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 318. Amendment No. 317 seeks to place the principles behind the creation of home zones and quiet lanes on the face of the Bill. Home zones, which are a well-established part of urban planning in much of Continental Europe, are residential streets in which cars travel at little more than walking pace and where cyclists and pedestrians take priority. We have seen how such zones not only contribute to a lower accident rate among vulnerable road users but also help to regenerate blighted urban streets, as well as fostering a sense of community. Quiet lanes are less commonplace, although they are being used extensively on the island of Jersey, where legislation is being introduced to give priority to walkers, cyclists and horse riders.
    In this country the Countryside Agency has three pilot schemes in which a particular route is designated as a quiet lane where walking, cycling and riding are encouraged and vehicles are subject to a 20 mile-an-hour speed limit. Local authorities are beginning to introduce home zones and quiet lanes on an experimental basis. We await with interest the outcome of their endeavours. But there is a substantial body of evidence from elsewhere in Europe which demonstrates that it is the issue of precedents that makes the scheme successful.
    When I tabled similar amendments in Committee, the Minster expressed some support for the principles that I outlined but said that he found my amendments to be over-prescriptive. I sincerely hope that my new amendments will find favour in the eyes of the noble Lord in so far as they leave the question of priority to the appropriate national authority to introduce as a matter of regulation.
    On these Benches we have attempted to use the relatively rare occasion of a transport Bill as an opportunity to give voice to some of the issues that were raised in the Government's own road safety strategy earlier in the year and which required primary legislation. It seems a pity to miss this opportunity.
    Amendment No. 318 follows on from Amendment No. 317, at least in part, in that it relates to the creation of safer rural roads. The government's road safety strategy contains a commitment to develop a rural road hierarchy, which would enable local authorities to update their current classifications and to create more appropriate speed management strategies. Primary legislation is required to reclassify roads according to their current function and quality. Guidance is proposed to ensure national consistency.
    The conventional approach to road safety in rural areas is to carry out spot treatments on sites with high accident levels. In rural areas that often leads to outbreaks of signing and rashes of paint on roads. It can often result in accidents happening elsewhere along the road. It is becoming very clear that a more strategic approach is needed, as well as reconsideration of the national 60-mile-an-hour speed limit that is relevant along most of our rural roads.
    An analysis of road accidents in 1999 showed that accidents in rural areas accounted for 1,800 deaths and that 13,000 people were seriously injured, with almost 70,000 slightly injured. That is a terrible toll. I am sure that we all share in the Government's determination to reduce the road casualty toll. The creation of a rural road hierarchy could make a significant contribution to that objective. I beg to move.
    Lord Berkeley: My Lords, I support both these amendments. As the noble Baroness said, we discussed this issue in Committee. It is terribly important that home zones are given a lot more thought. Both the question of speed and that of precedents are vital to their success. I should like to draw the attention of noble Lords to some other figures from the famous transport statistics for this year. These facts apply to 30-mile-an-hour speed limited roads, which are probably the ones about which we are talking. They reveal that over 50 per cent of all cars, lorries, light vehicles, buses, coaches and motorcycles exceed the speed limit. Moreover, 38 per cent of motorcyclists exceed it by more than 35 miles an hour. We do not need to be reminded of the relationship between speed and the severity of accidents.
    The other consideration is priority. Naturally, cars have priority on roads but pedestrians should have priority on pavements. Where pedestrianisation schemes have merged the one into the other, there is a duty on the driver of the faster and the more protected vehicle to give way. I believe this to be a very good amendment. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will take it most seriously. If, as so often happens, it is not quite what the Government want, perhaps he will be able to return at the next stage with an even better draft.
    Lord Swinfen: My Lords, the noble Baroness has put forward quite a good idea in these amendments. However, as regards the quiet lanes, does she think that there should be a speed limit? I am sure that they will very often be both narrow and winding, with, I hope, nice hedges on either side, which will make it

    1173
    rather difficult for drivers to see the pedestrians and the riders that the noble Baroness envisages using such quiet lanes.
    Lord Whitty: My Lords, I very much welcome the noble Baroness's persistence in this matter; indeed, probably more so than she knows. Although the Government did not favour the precise amendments that she put forward in Committee, which were not very dissimilar to the ones now before the House, I indicated then that we would seriously consider bringing forward other amendments. In the event, we have not managed to do so in time for the Report stage. However, as the noble Baroness rightly said, such issues are central to our road safety strategy and transport Bills do not come forward all that frequently.
    Although we have not, as yet, received the full feedback from the pilot schemes on home zones, it is important to get these provisions on to the statute book. Therefore, I am in principle indicating to the noble Baroness that I accept both of these amendments but that I wish to bring forward my own amendments because there are one or two matters that it might be important to highlight. It is, of course, partly a question of drafting; for example, the list of reasons for declaring home zones may inadvertently be narrower than I or the noble Baroness would wish. As regards the rural road hierarchy, the amendment imposes the system upon the devolved administrations, which is inappropriate. We think that the requirement to produce guidance on the hierarchy within six months is over zealous. We need to have a fairly substantial consultation period which probably should be six months in itself. One needs a longer period to do a sensible job.
    However, I shall meet those quibbles in the amendments that I intend to bring forward at Third Reading. If the noble Baroness withdraws her amendment, we shall bring forward appropriate amendments. However, I sound a note of caution on the home zone amendment. It will contain delegated powers which would normally be examined by the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee. However, it is too late for that, given the timescale between now and Third Reading. However, I believe that we are within our rights to say that the powers are similar to ones that already exist to which the delegated powers committee has "given the nod".
    As regards the hierarchy, we should be able to table an amendment to ensure that we engage all parties and deliver an effective policy. As I say, I prefer the 12-month to the six-month period. Consultation will be required with the devolved administrations. I hope that the noble Baroness will accept my assurances that we shall adhere to the spirit of her amendments which make a serious contribution to our road safety strategy. We shall debate the matter again at Third Reading.
    Baroness Scott of Needham Market: My Lords, I warmly thank the Minister and other noble Lords who have spoken in support of the amendment. As a
    1174
    member of Suffolk County Council I have taken an active interest in rural road safety issues for almost a decade. My authority is well known nationally for pioneering approaches to speed management. It is a matter of great satisfaction to me that the amendments that the Government will bring forward will enable local authorities in this country to make the contribution that they very much want to make to reducing road casualties. I gladly beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    [Amendment No. 318 not moved.]
    Earl Attlee Earl Attlee moved Amendment No. 319:
    After Clause 257, insert the following new clause—

    POWERS TO CHARGE FOREIGN GOODS VEHICLES AND LARGE PASSENGER VEHICLES ENTERING THE UNITED KINGDOM
    (" .—(1) The Secretary of State may by order implement a scheme for the charging of foreign lorries and large passenger vehicles on entering the United Kingdom.
    (2) The scheme may apply different charges for different classes of vehicle.
    (3) Before implementing a scheme under this section the Secretary of State shall consult United Kingdom local authorities, road haulage and passenger vehicle operators, the European Commission and any other bodies which appear appropriate.
    (4) The effects of the scheme must be reviewed annually.
    (5) No order may be made by the Secretary of State under this section unless a draft of the instrument containing it has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.").
    The noble Earl said: My Lords, the amendment gives the power to the Secretary of State to levy charges on foreign lorries and coaches entering the UK.
    UK hauliers are not competing on a level playing field. We discussed that matter at Question Time today. A UK based haulier is taxed at two and a half times the EU average. Today the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, pointed out that Continental operators have to pay higher social taxes. However, when competing in a tough market, what matters is the marginal cost of operation. UK hauliers have a disadvantage on fuel alone that works out at about 12p a mile. At an average speed of 40 miles an hour, that works out at about £4.80 per hour, which is a little less than the cost of the driver!
    The Minister will also point out that only a small percentage of UK haulage is undertaken by foreign hauliers. That is correct, but large sectors are closed to them, except for in the general haulage market. For instance, all the supermarket distribution and parcels work, most of the tanker operations and, by definition, all of the own account operations are not available to foreign hauliers. However, their activities are significant in the market that is available to them. Furthermore, relatively modest penetration in to a market can have a disproportionate effect on the market rate.
    On top of these marginal costs, UK hauliers pay vehicle excise duty at rates that can be well over £3,000 per annum per vehicle. Many Continental countries have rates of less than £500. While British operators

    1175
    pay Eurovignette charges and road tolls, Continental operators have free and unlimited use of the UK's road network. In addition, foreign vehicles are not always subject to the UK's strict safety checks and, because they fill up abroad, they do not all run on ultra low sulphur diesel, and may therefore contribute to the degradation of British air quality.
    In Committee I tabled a similar amendment which was specific to vehicles carrying abnormal loads. The Minister explained the difficulties in his usual persuasive way. He referred to the difficulties of the vignette directive, but could he not negotiate with our EU partners to overcome those difficulties? If he believes the difficulties to be insurmountable, does he feel that no solution similar to our Brit Disc is feasible?
    My amendment clearly requires some fine tuning. However, at this stage of the Bill, it is designed to give the Minister the opportunity to state how he will deal with the very real problems that I have described. I beg to move.
    Lord Berkeley: My Lords, I support the principle of the amendment. However, I take issue with some of the statistics that the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, mentioned. I also have a few queries as regards the statistics that my noble friend Lord Macdonald mentioned earlier at Question Time. However, that is a detail.
    There is an inconsistency here in that foreign registered lorries which enter the UK do not pay to use our roads. They do not pay vehicle excise duty. They should be charged for using our roads under a system that is as simple to operate and as equitable as possible but also does not conflict with EU rules. As my noble friend said in Committee, because of EU rules all lorries, be they UK or foreign registered, would have to be charged the same amount. One would hope that a similar commensurate reduction would be made in the UK registered lorries' VED to make any charge neutral.
    In the past Ministers and organisations have said that the cost of doing this would be much too high and that the Treasury would not get any money out of it. I think that is questionable. It is easy to sell a kind of tax disc at ports where lorries enter the country. I believe that for years the Swiss have sold motorists something similar to enable them to drive through Switzerland. The important thing is to establish the principle here. I know that at the moment there is a maximum rate that the EU allows one to charge. However, it is important to get the system established, even at that low rate and then try to persuade other member states and the Commission that the maximum permitted rate for such charges should be raised in the future. I hope that my noble friend will be able to give us some comfort on this matter.
    Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, as has been said, the issue of a vignette was mentioned in Committee. It is an issue which the Government have considered. We have discussed it with the industry and others, including at the Road Haulage Forum.
    1176
    The issue is complicated because a vignette can be introduced only in the form set out in the relevant European Union directive. Among other things, this sets the maximum amount which can be charged in a year—some £930 for older, dirtier lorries and £750 for newer ones—and provides that we would have to charge the same amount for UK based lorries. As the amendment stands, it might be difficult to avoid charging UK lorries for a vignette in addition to the rates of vehicle excise duty which they now pay. I suspect that that is not what the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, wants. I also suspect that the Conservative Party would not wish in the run-up to the pre-Budget report to be on record as supporting an increase in the charges which hauliers would have to pay. However, the amendment might result in that.
    There are various technicalities which would need to be sorted out before we could set up a vignette scheme. Although the regulation-making power proposed in the amendment is wide, it might not be wide enough to cover the necessary points. For instance, we would need to make arrangements for proper enforcement, which would mean amending primary legislation. This amendment does not provide for that. There might be other implementation issues which would need primary legislation. When a complex system is involved—and it has to be complex—it is important to make sure that the details have been thought through before taking the necessary powers; and there is, I am afraid, no time to do that before the Bill is enacted.
    We would have to consider a vignette in relation to taxes and charges on the road haulage industry. It is likely that any rational change would have to be made in a finance Act which would not be within the powers of this House. Therefore, despite my sympathy for the aims of the amendment, it will not work.
    6.30 p.m.
    Earl Attlee: My Lords, I am grateful for the Minister's response. I shall not argue statistics with the noble Lord. Lord Berkeley, when he has a copy of the UK transport statistics with him.
    I stated that the amendment would require fine tuning. The Minister suggests some large-scale adjustments. I shall read carefully what he said. In the mean time. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment but may return to the issue at a later stage.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    [Amendment No. 320 not moved.]
    Lord Rotherwick Lord Rotherwick moved Amendment No. 321:
    After Clause 258, insert the following new clause—

    Stands etc. for bicycles or motor cycles
    .—(1) The Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 is amended as follows.
    (2) In section 63 (power of authorities to provide stands and racks for bicycles), for "and racks for bicycles" substitute "or racks for, or devices for securing, bicycles or motor cycles".
    (3) In section 136(4) (meaning of "motor cycle"), for "section 57" substitute "sections 57 and 63".").
    The noble Lord said: My Lords, I apologise for not having played any part in the Bill to date, largely because I have been abroad. I am grateful for the Government's invitation to bring forward these amendments. As a motorcycling Peer, I commute daily to London. I park my motor cycle overnight in the streets of London. Having got somewhat soaked today, I stand in my rather damp socks!
    I have much pleasure in moving Amendment No. 321 and speak also to Amendment No. 340. I thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford and the noble Viscount, Lord Craigavon, for putting their names to the amendment. I am also grateful for the cross-party support I have received in the past; and for the past and present support of the Government. These provisions formed my Road Traffic Regulation (Cycle Parking) Bill which went through all its stage in this House last year, only to come to a halt in another place having run out of time.
    The Labour policy document, Bike to Basics, stated that motorcycling would be at the heart of the national transport agenda. This was followed by the White Paper, A New Deal for Transport: Better for Everyone. Like other bikers, I welcome those moves.
    By March last year there were around 626,000 motorcycles in the country. Per passenger mile, the energy efficiency of a moped is identical to that of an average stage bus. Moped sales in Greater London rose by 435 per cent between 1995 and 1998 and two-wheeled motor vehicle traffic rose by 16 per cent between 1998 and 1999 compared with an increase of 1 per cent for car traffic.
    The amendments are designed to help to deal with two-wheeled motor vehicle theft. The chairman of the All-Party Parliamentary Motorcycle Group, Ms Hazel Blears, has suffered from having her motorcycle stolen. I, too, have suffered from having lost two motorcycles in London in the past five years. Many hikers, especially those in London, have suffered similarly. Around 25,000 motorcycles are stolen every year, but the recovery rate is only 14 per cent compared with 65 per cent for cars. Vehicle crime costs this country around £3 billion a year. In the three years up to and including 1999, 52,000 motorcycles were reported stolen, and not recovered. London is the capital of the world for motorcycle theft with twice the problem of any other country, and seven times that of Germany.
    The amendments will help to solve these appalling theft problems by enabling local highway authorities to provide secure parking facilities for motorcycles at designated motorcycle parking places on the highway and in local authority off-street car parks. There is no obligation on authorities to provide secure parking under the Bill, but it puts motorcycle parking on a par with pedal cycle parking which local authorities can already provide. Authorities would be able to act where a demand for secure parking exists for motorcycles. The amendments would not allow
    1178
    motorcycle parking in pedestrian areas but would provide local authorities with useful additional powers to help to reduce crime. I beg to move.
    Viscount Falkland: My Lords, as another motorcyclist—I park my motorcycle next to that of the noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick—I support everything he said. I congratulate him on introducing the amendment and explaining the background to it so clearly. I do not have much sympathy with him as regards his socks: nowadays anyone who rides a motorcycle every day need not get wet. The two things that motorcyclists have now are adequate clothing and good machines. What they do not have is adequate parking. If motorcyclists find adequate parking, they require the means to protect their motorcycle from theft. It is essential to provide suitable, solid stands to which a strong chain can be attached in order to make it difficult for criminals to take away the bike.
    The noble Lord referred to a figure of 25,000 motorcycles being stolen a year. The figure is rising. Most thefts are of scooters, the use of which is proliferating because of congestion and so on. That is against a background of reduced numbers of parking spaces in some local authorities. For reasons which are not clear—the matter has been given much publicity—Westminster has decided to provide some parking for motorcycles with stands, but it will introduce charges of, I understand, about £2 per hour.
    The situation is the same for cycles. They are subject to theft. I recently lost a bicycle in the space of one and a half minutes. It was silly of me: it was a folding bike which I could have taken inside with me. I now take my folding bicycle everywhere with me, even into supermarkets at great inconvenience to myself and others. But that is the only way I can protect a £500 investment. Cycles being light in weight, the stands for cycles require to be considerably less substantial, but they are essential.
    Motorcycles need substantial investment. That is recognised. It has been suggested by motorcycling bodies to which the noble Lord and I belong that local authorities could fund such stands by introducing advertising on them. We have made many suggestions. But none is any good because there is an anti-motorcycle culture in this country which does not exist in France, Germany, Holland, Spain or Italy. In Westminster, and to a degree in the Corporation of London area, motorcycles are deemed to be as polluting as motor cars. When we were an unreformed House, a Peer using a motorcycle used to be deemed to be eccentric. I do not think that that applies any longer. One is deemed to be some kind of yahoo.
    Lord Berkeley: My Lords, I cannot resist asking the noble Viscount whether he puts his eccentric folding bicycle on top of the vegetables in the supermarket trolley or underneath.
    Viscount Falkland: My Lords, I am talking about being an eccentric motorcyclist. I do not think that Peers riding bicycles have ever been deemed eccentric, unless they have enormous baskets and make a point

    1179
    of going the wrong way down one-way streets, rather like the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, who tells us all about it from time to time but who is not in his place at the moment.
    Motorcyclists are generally seen as hobbledehoys and yahoos, unless they are Peers, in which case they are deemed eccentric. That attitude, which is not present in other countries, is behind the absence of racks for motorcycles. Provision is very patchy. Some local authorities with chief engineers who ride motorcycles or who are favourable to them have reasonable provision for motorcycle parking. In Wandsworth, for example, there are substantial stands for parking motorcycles.
    The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, has done a great deal of work with his committee to examine provision for motorcyclists. We are optimistic about the outcome of those discussions and deliberations, but unless the anti-motorcycle attitude is dealt with head-on, we shall not get the co-operation that the noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick, and I—and, I hope, the Minister—want to encourage better provision for motorcycles.
    If that does not happen, current levels of motorcycle theft will continue or even increase. The criminal organisations that steal motorcycles know that for technical reasons it is currently very difficult to secure a conviction. The Crown Prosecution Service is unwilling to allow prosecutions for organised motorcycle theft unless it thinks that a conviction is likely. The problems of gathering evidence and matching the numbers on frames and engines to their rightful owners, as well as other complicated technical issues, make it very difficult to get hold of the criminals, who make a good living out of the practice.
    I support the amendment wholeheartedly and I hope that the Minister will do the same, as well as perhaps hinting at further support for motorcycling.
    Viscount Craigavon: My Lords, as a fellow motorcyclist and cyclist, I am happy to support the amendment. It is useful to remind the House of motorcycles and cycles. I also congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick, on the work that he has done on an apparently small amendment to the Bill. He did a great deal of preparatory work on his Bill last year.
    At a previous stage I said that I hoped that we were pushing at an open door. I believe that we are, so I shall not be long. However, I should like to add one statistic to what has already been said. Unfortunately, the recovery rate of stolen motorcycles is only about 16 per cent. One can imagine the difficulties that that causes for some people.
    I hope that the Government will strenuously encourage pilot schemes if the amendment is accepted so that people can see the success of that mode of parking. Once it is proved to be a success, I hope that we can find other ways of encouraging local authorities to take it up as soon as possible. The only proper trial scheme with secure parking that I recall had a 100 per cent success rate. If the Government are
    1180
    encouraging, I hope that the motorcycle industry, enthusiasts and the police will encourage secure parking.
    I am slightly worried by the reference of the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, to charges for secure motorcycle parking. I hope that it does not become a source of revenue for local authorities. I hope that the Government will keep an eye on that. We need to reduce the ridiculously high rate of motorcycle theft.
    6.45 p.m.
    Earl Attlee: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Rotherwick has been working on the issue for some time. If he is successful, as I am sure that he will be, I congratulate him on his efforts and I thank the Minister for looking favourably on yet another excellent suggestion.
    Lord Whitty: My Lords, the noble Earl pre-empts me effectively. I can hardly say no now.
    As the noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick, knows, I strongly supported his Private Member's Bill last year. We recognise that motorcycle theft is a serious problem for motorcycle riders and society as a whole. Anything that we can do to improve the security of motorcycles must be a good thing. The amendment is pitched just right and it is important that central and local government support it.
    The Government do not share the alleged anti-motorcyclist culture that the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, referred to. We have a constructive relationship with motorcycling organisations. They support the amendment and we support their contribution to an effective transport policy. For law and order and transport policy reasons, we consider the amendment appropriate and I accept it as it stands.
    Lord Rotherwick: My Lords, on behalf of all bikers, I thank the Minister for his kindness. I hope that the amendment will result in the creation of a large number of secure places on the streets.
    Most motorcyclists have one other serious concern: the lack of motorcycle places is leading to the parking of a large number of motorcycles on the pavements next to street lights. That is not a safe place to park them. That is the only downside that I can see. I repeat my thanks and that of a large number of bikers for the Government's support for the amendment.
    On Question, amendment agreed to.
    Earl Attlee Earl Attlee moved Amendment No. 322:
    After Clause 258, insert the following new clause—

    Stands etc. for bicycles or motor cycles

      MOTOR CYCLES IN BUS LANES
      (" .—(1) The Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 is amended as follows.
      (2) In section 3 (what a road traffic regulation order may provide), at end insert—
      "(5) No traffic regulation order shall apply to the use of a two-wheeled motor cycle in a bus lane unless specifically authorised by an order made by the Secretary of State."
      (3) In section 6(1) (orders similar to traffic regulation orders), leave out "and (5)" and insert ", (5) and (7)".
      (4) In section 6, at end insert—
      "(7) No traffic regulation order made under this section shall apply to the use of a two-wheeled motor cycle in a bus lane unless specifically authorised by an order made by the Secretary of State.").
      (5) In section 142 (general interpretation of Act), insert in the appropriate place—
      ""bus lane" means that part of the road which is restricted to public service vehicles and other vehicles in accordance with a traffic regulation order made under section 1 or 6 of this Act,
      "motor cycle" means a mechanically propelled vehicle, not being an invalid carriage, with less than four wheels and the weight of which does not exceed 410 kilograms,"").
      The noble Earl said: My Lords, the amendment would allow motorcycles to use bus lanes. I was surprised to learn that they cannot. The Minister will have given the matter much thought. I imagine that there are advantages and disadvantages to the proposal, which I am sure that he will explain to us.
      Amendments Nos. 323 and 324 are about collapsible warning triangles used in the event of breakdowns. The hard shoulder is the most dangerous part of a motorway. After a breakdown, safety can be enhanced by placing a warning triangle at least 100 metres behind the broken down vehicle. Unfortunately, motorists have always been very poor at doing that.
      The latest Highway Code appears to discourage the use of warning triangles on a motorway. Am I correct in my reading of that? Does UK advice differ from continental practice, advice and law? I beg to move.
      Viscount Falkland: My Lords, I have less enthusiasm for this amendment than I had for the previous one moved by the noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick, and accepted so graciously by the Government. Those of us who have been involved with motorcycling organisations through the all-party motorcycling group have always urged the Government to accept the use of bus lanes for motorcyclists as a priority. To an extent, I have been a prime mover in that. I must admit that I have slightly modified my opinion on the matter. I was discussing it away from the Chamber with the noble Earl only yesterday evening.
      As the Minister knows, many experiments have taken place in the United Kingdom regarding the possibility of freeing bus lanes for motor cycles. That idea has been met with vigorous opposition from pedestrian and cycling groups. I do not want to deal with the views of pedestrian groups in relation to this matter, although I sympathise with some of the more moderate ones that I have heard. I believe that cycling groups have a far stronger case. I say that because, since deciding to take more exercise, I have been cycling more around London and have used the lanes. I now sympathise with cyclists who, if not threatened, at least feel that there is always the possibility that a dispatch rider or a motor cycle will bear down upon them.
      I believe that the principle of putting motor cycles into lanes in order to free congestion is reasonable. However, anyone who fancies that motor cycles will cease to weave around the traffic when bus lanes are
      1182
      open to them is living in a fantasy world. The whole point of having a motor cycle—I have been riding one since long before bus lanes were created—is to get to the front of the queue as quickly as possible. That can be done perfectly satisfactorily by going through or around traffic provided that one is not aggressive.
      Noble Lords may be surprised to hear that I have discovered that motorists, including taxi drivers, are surprisingly co-operative with motor cyclists provided that the latter are not threatening. By "threatening" I do not mean waving a fist; I refer to a person's general attitude. If you ride sitting up, people let you go anywhere. If you ride in an aggressive, crouched position with full leathers and kit, motorists are not likely to let you in. Therefore, the background to the attitude towards motor cyclists is complicated.
      Dispatch riders generally are not as threatening as they are perceived to be. However, I would not want to see dispatch riders in bus lanes, at least until it becomes illegal for those who ply themselves for hire to do so with L-plates. It would be extremely difficult if those who deliver pizzas and so on were allowed into bus lanes.
      I accept the principle behind what the noble Earl says. It would be wonderful if motor cyclists, cyclists, pedestrians and car drivers could respect their respective status as road users, behave with a little restraint and employ good manners. However, I am afraid that in the real world that is unlikely to happen. The greater the number of cyclists and motor cyclists on the road, the more conflict there is. The present situation can be very unpleasant, particularly for cyclists, who cannot accelerate out of the way.
      Experiments have shown that benefits are to be derived from opening bus lanes to, what are called, powered two-wheelers. Perhaps in his reply the Minister will agree that some of the suggestions that have been put forward are sensible; for example, those from authorities which say, "Well, it would work if we could put up signs which make it possible for bicycles, motor cycles or scooters to do this at certain times of the day". But the procedure is complicated and expensive.
      However, I believe that the general principle behind the noble Earl's amendment could produce difficulties. The situation is not quite as simple as I believe he imagines it to be. Unless more work were done, much friction would result on the roads. I do not know what he intends to do with the amendment but, if he pressed it to a Division, I should probably abstain.
      Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I believe that in general the proposals in Amendments Nos. 323 and 324 are good. However, I am a little concerned that both my noble friend's amendments refer to a broken down vehicle. I understand that a bicycle is technically a vehicle. I wonder where on a bicycle the collapsible triangle can be carried and whether it is practical to carry such an item on a bicycle. Not being an eccentric Peer in the motor cycling spirit—I probably am in many other ways—I do not know how practical it is to carry a triangle on a bicycle.

      1183
      No doubt when later my noble friend decides what to do with his amendments, he will be able to tell me whether it is practical for a cyclist to carry a collapsible triangle on a bicycle.
      Earl Attlee: My Lords, the amendment does not provide that a warning triangle must be carried. It simply seeks to prevent the Minister saying that it should not be used.
      Lord Rotherwick: My Lords, I rise briefly to support Amendment No. 322 in the name of my noble friend Lord Attlee. It is obvious that I should do so after what I said previously. I remember raising the subject of motor cycles in bus lanes at Starred Questions about three years ago and hearing terrible groans from all around the House. When the matter was raised more recently, we did not appear to hear those groans. When I asked a colleague, he informed me that the reason was quite simple: it was because there were fewer hereditary Peers around.
      I hope that there will now be more support for the idea of motor cyclists using bus lanes. As a motor cyclist, I know full well that the best way to move quickly around London is not with speed, but with care about where I position myself. If one travels slowly, with great planning one will always go faster than the person who travels at 300 miles per hour. It is obvious that slower scooters often beat the most powerful motor cycles, even though, when one travels from one traffic light to the next, the most powerful motor cycles always seem to be going faster.
      I believe that much advantage would be gained by allowing motor cycles in bus lanes. It would end the dangerous practice of motor cyclists driving tightly between cars or, worse still, between cars and the white line next to the opposing traffic. It would put them in a much quieter area of the road and away from the contentious area.
      Like the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, I believe that tremendous sympathy exists on the roads for motor cyclists. I am always amazed at the number of car drivers who will make way for a motor cyclist as he travels past. That seems to happen more and more often. I hope that the Minister will support the amendment.
      Lord Berkeley: My Lords, as a cyclist, I do not like this amendment very much. I was a little confused by some of the comments of the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland. I was not sure whether he was proposing that motor cyclists should be able to travel in bus lanes if they were not plying for hire or were not delivering pizzas. I believe that that would lead to problems of enforcement.
      The point that I wish to make is that you feel safer by cycling in a bus lane because the only vehicle that is likely to bear down on you is a bus, which is usually driven by a professional driver. The bus may be a little wider than the bus lane plus the cycle, but it is not much wider than some of the wide motor cycles that
      1184
      one sees. According to subsection (5) of the amendment, a motor cycle can have three wheels and, therefore, may be quite wide.
      This matter concerns safety and fear. Whereas cyclists on a pavement engender fear in pedestrians (and that is to be deprecated), similarly I fear that motor cyclists in bus lanes—one never quite knows when they are coming and where they will weave—will engender fear in cyclists. Whereas cyclists and buses can co-exist happily in bus lanes, I do not believe that the same will apply to motor cyclists. Therefore, I oppose the amendment.
      7 p.m.
      Lord Whitty: My Lords, as the noble Viscount indicated, this issue of motorcycles in bus lanes is more complex than straightforward. As my noble friend, Lord Berkeley, has indicated, it raises fairly passionate feelings on all sides of the House. I do not think that the noble Lord's amendment would provide local authorities with the degree of flexibility required and in the long term, flexibility is necessary.
      We are aware, as the noble Viscount says, that there are a relatively small number of local authorities which have made orders to permit motorcyclists use of bus lanes—Bristol, Reading and other places. Unfortunately, none of these schemes has been fully monitored and it is therefore difficult for the department to draw firm conclusions. It is also true that these schemes have raised the kinds of anxieties to which my noble friend Lord Berkeley referred. That is why we have encouraged local authorities to put forward proposals for properly monitored pilot studies, so that we can reach conclusions about this practice.
      The Government are not opposed in principle to motorcyclists using bus lanes in appropriate circumstances, but we do require further evidence that this can work without serious danger or traffic reaction from other road users. We are, therefore, encouraging local authorities to come forward with pilot schemes, but the noble Lord's amendment would reverse the current presumption and we do not believe we should go that far.
      In relation to amendments relating to triangles, the noble Lord is wrong to say that we seek to prohibit the use of triangles on motorways, but the advice for motorways is different from that for other highways. Although current regulations allow the use of warning triangles and other devices, such as cones, flashing warning lights, and so forth, to draw attention to a broken-down vehicle, a driver of such a vehicle on a motorway has to avoid putting himself in jeopardy. It is therefore something that we would discourage. Rule 249 of the Highway Code advises drivers who experience such problems on a motorway, if possible to stop by an emergency telephone and to avoid walking on the hard shoulder as much as possible.
      Warning triangles are not that conspicuous to fast-moving traffic. To meet the distance before a vehicle arrives—as laid down in these amendments—from 45 metres to 100 metres, would require the driver to walk quite a long way along the hard shoulder.

      1185
      There are already concerns for people who are legitimately attending to broken-down vehicles on the side of the motorway. We do not want to make that worse. Therefore, we adopt a different approach in relation to our advice on the use of warning triangles and that advice is well-founded.
      We do not seek to prohibit them, because in default of other signals, a triangle may well be appropriate. However, the dangers have to be pointed out to motorists and we think, therefore, that they are less appropriate on motorways than elsewhere. I hope that explains why we cannot accept the noble Earl's amendment.
      Earl Attlee: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response. Fortunately, I am not a parliamentary draftsman. If I were, the Minister would be kept really busy. I am grateful for his comments and the fact that he is studying the matter. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      [Amendments Nos. 323 and 324 not moved.]
      Earl Attlee Earl Attlee moved Amendment No. 325:
      After Clause 258, insert the following new clause—

      DISPLAY OF TEST DATE DISC ON EXCISE VEHICLES
      (" . After section 45(2)(b) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 there is inserted—
      "(c) for the issue and display of a test date disc, where it is found on such examination that the requirements mentioned in subsection (1) above are complied with.
      (2A) In this section, a "test date disc" means disc similar in size and shape to a licence issued according to regulations made under the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994 and containing the following particulars—

      (a) the registered number of the vehicle assigned under section 23 of the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994;

      (b) the date until which the test certificate is valid; and

      (c) the serial number of the test certificate.").

      The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 326.
      These amendments concern MoT test certificates that are required to verify that motor vehicles are roadworthy. Noble Lords will be aware that it is a requirement to have and if necessary produce, a test certificate. There is no requirement to display the certificate or even carry it in the vehicle. It is, however, interesting to note that goods vehicle trailers do have to display a test date certificate similar in size and design to a vehicle excise licence.
      Any noble Lord having two or more cars will know how easy it is unwittingly to "run out" of MoT on a car. Moreover, when borrowing a car, one has to assume it has a current certificate. My understanding is that the Minister is making good progress towards electronically handling MoT records at DVLA. If he follows this route, stolen certificates will become less of a problem and the actual certificate would become
      1186
      superfluous, were a test date disc available. This would require primary legislation and this Bill presents a good opportunity for it. I beg to move.
      Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I should like to speak to my Amendment No. 327 which is in this group. It is an enabling amendment. I understand that where parking fines are outstanding, after a period local authorities often cease to chase the offender for payment, because it is too expensive administratively to take the offender to court.
      However, we are now in the age of information technology. I understand that if the police need to check the registered keeper of a vehicle, they can do so in a matter of minutes using information technology.
      Therefore, it should not be difficult for local authorities and other authorities which issue parking fines to pass information on unpaid fines to the DVLA, so that when someone applies for the renewal of his excise licence, should he have one or more outstanding fines against him, they can be collected at the same time and passed through to the authority concerned, thereby reducing the costs of the local residents and increasing the local authority's revenue.
      As a general rule, people have 28 days to pay a fine. Therefore, the regulations would have to provide that any fines collected would have to be at least 28 days old. One should also allow a number of days for the local authority to transmit the information to the DVLA. I would suggest either a further 14 days—which is, to my mind, ample—or 28 days.
      It is not unknown for someone to come to his vehicle, find a parking ticket, screw it up and throw it in the gutter. He then fails to reply to follow-ups from the local authority and eventually gets away with it.
      The inconsiderate "parker" is likely to be the inconsiderate driver. Inconsiderate drivers should be brought up short, because very often they are the ones who cause accidents. Even with my inadequate drafting, I hope that the Minister will look kindly upon my amendment.
      Lord Whitty: My Lords, the noble Earl's amendments would require an MoT disc to be displayed alongside the road tax disc. That would not add a great deal but it may cause significant additional problems. As he hinted, we are going down a different road in terms of checking one document for others.
      The idea of having an MoT disc has been discussed before but in order to get a tax disc for a car older than three years, one has to produce a valid MoT certificate. The noble Earl may be aware that there is now something of a market in forged MoT certificates. I suspect that the same would apply to forged MoT discs. That is moving in the opposite direction from that in which he would wish to go.
      We are going down the road of computerising the whole MoT network and fitting that in with an electronic relicensing system. So we are registering and computerising all the 19,000 MoT testing stations and putting them on a central database which will be accessible to all the enforcement authorities, including

      1187
      the police. That will enable them to ascertain whether or not a vehicle has a valid MoT test certificate. In addition, that will feed in to the broader process of electronic relicensing so that the whole licensing system will be accessible. We hope to see the first beneficial effects of that measure by about the end of 2002. That is the way we are going, rather than having a paper disc on the face of the car.
      I do not object to the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, because of its drafting but because of administrative difficulties. VED licences are currently issued by 4,500 post offices and 40 DVLA local offices. Each of those would need to have access to every parking authority's own records.
      Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I quite appreciate that relicensing can be done at the local post office. But the forms advising one of the licence fee and when it is due are sent out by the DVLA. Any outstanding fines could be included on the form and collected at the post office at the same time.
      Lord Whitty: My Lords, the noble Lord interrupted me slightly prematurely because the significant point is not the number of DVLA and post office outlets or the fact that the form comes from the DVLA. The problem is that the fines are levied by a large number of parking authorities, some decriminalised and some not, and no central record is kept of outstanding parking fines. One would have to create a central record of parking fines before this proposal could possibly operate. That does not exist at present. We have to rely, theoretically at least, on telephone links to all the parking authorities, or all the likely parking authorities. That would have substantial resource and cost implications. It would cost quite a lot of money for the parking authorities to have a centralised national database. Without that, there is no way that this proposal could work administratively. In view of that problem, I ask the noble Lord not to pursue his amendment.
      Lord Swinfen: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I said that the local authority which sets the fine after a period would pass the information through to the DVLA. It is not for the DVLA to get in touch with all the local authorities. After 28 days, or whatever time is given for the payment of the fine and a reasonable period after that for administrative reasons, that information could be passed through and it could be passed through electronically. Modern technology brings these things in very nicely.
      Lord Whitty: My Lords, the noble Lord's amendment does not impose a requirement on the parking authority to pass on that information to the DVLA. Without that, that would not occur.
      There is another concern which is that it is another incentive for anyone who has a parking fine outstanding not to relicense his vehicle. We already have a big enough problem with unlicensed, and therefore uninsured, drivers and those drivers are
      1188
      likely to be the same sort of people who avoid paying the fines. Therefore, the proposal would have a cumulatively negative effect on criminal and uninsured driving and I do not think that it would be appropriate.
      7.15 p.m.
      Earl Attlee: My Lords, I thank the Minister for an extremely satisfactory answer, which was probably better than accepting my amendment. Some of his arguments were rather weak. My car has plenty of tax on it but, unfortunately, no MoT. I shall address that at the weekend.
      Noble Lords: Oh!
      Earl Attlee: My Lords, it is safely on a farm and no offence is committed. The Minister has not addressed the problem of unwittingly using a vehicle that has run out of an MoT or borrowing someone's car which does not have an MoT.
      The Minister should have another look at my noble friend's amendment. Electronic vehicle licensing should, in due course make his proposal feasible, although it may not be feasible at the moment. In the future it should be possible to put a flag on the record at the DVLA to say that there is an outstanding fine on that vehicle and, therefore, a licence should not be granted until that it is paid. But in the meantime I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      [Amendments Nos. 326 to 329B not moved.]
      Earl Attlee Earl Attlee moved Amendment No. 329C:
      After Clause 258, insert the following new clause—

      MAXIMUM SPEED OF PASSENGER VEHICLES ON MOTORWAY
      (" In Part I of Schedule 6 to the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. in column 3(a) of the Table, for "70" and "60" there is substituted "62".").
      The noble Earl said: My Lords, the effect of the amendment is to reduce the maximum legal speed limit for a bus or a coach to 62 miles per hour. The amendment concerns bus and coach speed limits and tyre technology. Buses used on urban work can use heavy duty tyres which are resistant to being damaged by kerbing and general wear and tear. More important, they have about a 20 per cent longer service life. Unfortunately, they cannot be used above about 60 miles per hour. There is a way of avoiding that restriction by registering the vehicles as local service buses but those buses are limited to 50 miles per hour and there are other restrictions on their use.
      As a result of those restrictions, only about half of the buses which could use those longer life tyres do so. Although the maximum legal speed limit for buses or coaches is 70 miles per hour on a motorway, in fact they can only go at 100 kilometres or 62 miles per hour.
      EU directives require the fitting of a speed limiter unless the maximum geared speed of the vehicle is less than 100 kilometres. There are some preserved buses and coaches which do not need to be so limited but it is questionable whether they should be going so fast.
      If this amendment were agreed to, there would be no effect on bus or coach speeds because the vehicles cannot exceed 62 miles per hour in any event. But it would be legally possible to fit the more robust and economical tyres. The savings would be in the order of £2.5 million per annum to the bus industry. I shall not weary your Lordships with the calculations by the tyre industry but I have sent them to the Minister.
      I do not believe that there is any difficulty with the drafting of my amendment but it requires primary legislation and it seems that this is a good opportunity for that. I shall understand if the Minister would like to consider the matter further before declaring his position on the amendment but I intend to bring it back at a later stage. I beg to move.
      Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for explaining to me at some hour last night what this amendment was really about. Since the word "tyre" does not appear in the amendment up until that point it was totally obscure to me. But it does relate to the interaction between the speed limiter at European level of 100 kilometres per hour, which is 62 miles per hour.
      Although the noble Earl suggested that only coaches are limited in that way, that is not the case, because a simple reduction in the speed limit, which the amendment proposes, would affect quite a significant number of coaches permitted to run faster than 60 per miles per hour at the lighter end of the coach market which are not subject to the controls of the speed limiter.
      The requirements which specify the speed capacity of tyres are contained within secondary legislation, as I understand it. So it is not necessary to bring forward an amendment in primary legislation.
      Nevertheless, I am intrigued by the noble Earl's suggestion and the possible savings to the coach industry to which it may lead. I shall need to consider further the statistic that he has sent to me, but I do not believe that the matter requires primary legislation. I shall look at the possibility of making changes in the appropriate secondary legislation. I thank the noble Earl.
      Earl Attlee: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that response to my amendment. I doubt we shall see it again. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Earl Attlee Earl Attlee moved Amendment No. 329D:
      After Clause 258, insert the following new clause—

      DRIVER EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING IN ROAD HAULAGE INDUSTRY: PUBLICATION OF ANNUAL REPORT
      (" .—(1) The Secretary of State shall undertake an annual investigation of the road haulage industry to establish industry's needs with regard to the employment and training of commercial vehicle drivers.
      (2) The Secretary of State shall publish his conclusions in a report laid before Parliament 12 months after this Act comes into force and annually thereafter.
      (3) The report shall cover—

      (a) causes of road haulage industry accidents;

      (b) backlog of vocational driving tests;

      (c) training needs in the use of information technology;

      (d) shortages of suitable driving and related transport instructors; and

      (e) shortages and quality examiners.").

      The noble Earl said: My Lords, the road haulage industry in the United Kingdom is suffering severely from a lack of HGV drivers. In Committee I moved an amendment in relation to this matter. Can the Minister say whether he has any more plans to increase the availability of HGV drivers for the haulage industry? I beg to move.
      Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am not sure that seeking an answer to that question required an amendment of this nature! The Road Haulage Forum, in addressing the requirements to modernise the road haulage industry, has, among other things, undertaken to look at the skills requirements in the industry, in particular driver skills. There appears to be a shortage of drivers, not because of a lack of people who have qualified at some time in their lives to be HGV drivers, but because of the terms and conditions under which they work. There is also quite an elderly age profile of active HGV drivers in the industry and not enough younger trainees coming through.
      The Road Haulage and Distribution Training Council and the Driving Standards Agency are cooperating in looking at that and at the development of national occupational standards to promote a more professionally oriented lifetime-learning qualification in improvement of skills within the industry. All those things will be considered by a sub-committee of the Road Haulage Forum. They are important in addressing some of the problems in the industry to which my noble friend Lord Macdonald referred in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, earlier.
      However, that has nothing much to do with this legislation, but I thought I owed the noble Earl an answer as he has been so co-operative in helping to take us towards the end of Report stage of this Bill before half-past seven.
      Earl Attlee: My Lords, I have no idea what the noble Lord is talking about! I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Schedule 30 [Repeals and revocations]:
      Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 330 to 337:

      Page 331, line 6, at end insert—

      ("1996 c. ix.

      London Local Authorities Act 1996.

      Part II.")

      Page 331, column 3, leave out lines 7 to 9.

      Page 331, line 26, at end insert—

      ("2000 c. vii.

      London Local Authorities Act 2000.

      Section 48. Schedule 2.")

      Page 332, leave out lines 17 to 19.

      Page 336, line 11, column 3, after ("Board") insert ("or any subsidiary of theirs"").

      Page 338, column 3, leave out line 49 and insert—

      ("In section 43, subsection (11) and, in subsection (12), the words following paragraph (d).")

      Page 343, line 43, at end insert—

      ("(1) DRIVER TRAINING AND DRIVING INSTRUCTORS

      Chapter

      Short title

      Extent of repeal

      1988 c. 52.

      Road Traffic Act 1988.

      Section 89(2A) and (5A). In section 97— in subsection (3), paragraph (e) and the word "and" before it, and subsections (3A) and (3B). In section 98(3), paragraph (c) and the word "or" before it. In section 108(1), the definitions of "approved training course for motor cyclists" and "prescribed certificate of completion". In section 130— in subsection (3), the words "under this section", and in subsection (5), the words "granted under this section". Section 131(5). Schedule 3.

      1989 c. 22.

      Road Traffic (Driver Licensing and Information Systems) Act 1989.

      Section 6. In Schedule 3— in paragraph 11(c), sub-paragraph (ii) and the word "and" before it, in paragraph 15, sub-paragraph (g) and the word "and" before it, and in paragraph 18, sub-paragraphs (b) and (d).

      (2) OTHER PROVISIONS").

      Page 344, line 16, at end insert—

      ("1991c. 22.

      New Roads and Street Works Act 1991.

      In section 74(4), the words "if he does so".")

      On Question, amendments agreed to.
      Clause 266 [Extent]:
      Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 338 and 339:
      Page 166, line 29, after ("sections") insert ("(Charges for whole duration of works) and (Charges where works unreasonably prolonged),").
      Page 166, line 29, after ("256") insert (", (London service permits: appeals)").
      On Question, amendments agreed to.
      Lord Rotherwick Lord Rotherwick moved Amendment No. 340:
      Page 166, line 29, leave out ("and 258") and insert (", 258 and (Stands etc. for bicycles or motor cycles)").
      On Question, amendment agreed to.
      Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 341 to 343:
      Page 166, line 29, leave out ("relating to Part V") and insert ("in Part V(2) of Schedule 30").
      Page 166, line 31, after ("IV,") insert ("sections (Compulsory driver training courses) to (Training and instructors: minor and consequential amendments) (and Schedule (Driver training and driving instructors: minor and consequential amendments)).").
      Page 166, line 32, after ("257") insert (", and Part V(1) of Schedule 30,").
      On Question, amendments agreed to.

  Flags Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2000
  7.24 p.m.
  The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord Falconer of Thoroton)The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord Falconer of Thoroton) rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 23rd October be approved [28th Report from the Joint Committee].
  The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move that the draft Flags Regulations, laid before this House on 23rd October, be approved.
  These regulations make provisions for the flying of the Union flag, and other flags in certain circumstances, at government buildings in Northern Ireland. If approved by your Lordships, the regulations will place the flying of flags in Northern Ireland on the same basis as in the rest of the United Kingdom.
  The political talks that led to the Belfast agreement were lengthy and difficult. It was a tremendous achievement, setting out the way forward for Northern Ireland, a new beginning founded on agreed principles and a shared vision of the future. The agreement represents an historic compromise in many complex and sensitive areas which have long been a source of division in Northern Ireland, and it sets out principles agreed by the parties which can assist in addressing such issues. But we were under no illusions that implementing the agreement would be an easy task. Some issues, of which the flying of flags is one, will take longer to resolve. The regulations laid before the House tonight are intended to provide an interim resolution of this issue until the Northern Ireland Executive can itself reach agreement.
  Since devolution, flag flying has been the responsibility of the devolved administrations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. In Northern

  1193
  Ireland, Sinn Fein Ministers have instructed their officials not to fly the Union flag from government buildings under their control. The Executive and the Assembly were unable to resolve this issue and in the absence of such an agreement, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State concluded that he must make provision to regulate the flying of flags.
  In drawing up the regulations, the Secretary of State took account of the provisions of the Belfast agreement. One of the foundations of the agreement is the principle of consent, that Northern Ireland will remain part of the United Kingdom as long as the majority of its people wish it to do so. All the parties to the Good Friday agreement accepted that principle. The Union flag is the flag of the United Kingdom. It is not a political symbol, nor is it the property of only one section of the community. It is entirely consistent with the principle of consent that the Union flag be flown at government buildings in Northern Ireland, as it is flown at government buildings throughout the rest of the United Kingdom. The regulations provide for that—no more and no less.
  The Secretary of State also had regard to another foundation stone of the agreement, the principle of equality. The principle of equality requires that there must be just and equal treatment for the identity, ethos and aspirations of both traditions in Northern Ireland. The agreement recognises the legitimacy of both political aspirations and the right of both traditions to participate in the devolved institutions, so long as they are committed to peaceful and democratic means.
  The regulations, therefore, go no further than is necessary to reflect practice in the rest of the United Kingdom. They require that flags are flown at government buildings in Northern Ireland on the days specified and on no other days. That means that the Union flag will not be flown on four days on which, prior to devolution, it was flown only in Northern Ireland—Christmas Day, New Year's Day, Easter Sunday and 12th of July. In making this reduction, the regulations respect the sentiments of the majority of both traditions in Northern Ireland who wish to work together to resolve differences and to build respect and mutual understanding.
  In drawing up the draft regulations, the Secretary of State took into account the views of the political parties in Northern Ireland, and the view of the Northern Ireland Assembly. The flags order, which gave the Secretary of State power to make the regulations, was made on 17th May. When it became clear that the Northern Ireland Executive could not reach agreement on the flying of flags, the Secretary of State wrote to the Northern Ireland political parties on 10th July informing them that he was considering making regulations and seeking their views.
  On 8th September the Secretary of State sent draft regulations to the Assembly, as he was required to do by the flags order. The Assembly set up an ad hoc committee to consider the draft regulations: its report was debated in the Assembly on 17th October and adopted as the Assembly's report. On 18th October the Presiding Officer wrote to the Secretary of State
  1194
  enclosing a copy of the Assembly's report. That report did not contain any agreed recommendation, but instead set out the points made by the parties and others in their submissions to the ad hoc committee set up by the Assembly to consider the draft regulations.
  The Secretary of State considered very carefully all the points made, but in the absence of any recommendations agreed by the Assembly, decided that it would be wrong to depart from the principle that the arrangements for flag flying in Northern Ireland should mirror practice in the rest of the United Kingdom.
  Turning to the detail of the regulations, Regulation 2 requires that the Union flag is flown at the seven principal government buildings listed in Part I of the schedule on the days listed in Part II of the schedule. Those days are the same as those listed by Royal Command by Her Majesty issued on the Royal Prerogative and circulated to all UK departments by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. They do not include the four additional days on which the Union flag was flown from government buildings in Northern Ireland prior to devolution.
  The Union flag must also be flown on the specified days at any other government building not listed in the schedule, where it was the practice to fly it on the specified days in the 12 months preceding 30th November 1999.
  The regulations do not apply to Parliament buildings. The Flags (Northern Ireland) Order gives the Secretary of State power only to make regulations for government buildings, defined in the flags order as those buildings in Northern Ireland wholly or mainly occupied by the Northern Ireland Civil Service. The regulations therefore do not cover Parliament buildings. It is for the Northern Ireland Assembly, through the Assembly Commission, to decide what arrangements are made for its own building. And it is entirely right that it should do so.
  We do not believe that it would be appropriate for the Secretary of State to regulate the manner in which flags should be flown over the seat of the devolved administration. Hitherto, there has been no complaint about the way in which this matter has been dealt with by the Assembly authorities.
  Regulation 3 allows the Union flag to be flown at a government building during a visit by a head of state other than Her Majesty the Queen.
  Regulation 4 requires that the Royal Standard is flown at a government building during a visit by Her Majesty the Queen. As is the requirement in the rest of the UK, the Royal Standard is to be flown only while Her Majesty is in the building and must be flown in a superior position to the Union flag if the Union flag is also flown during the visit.
  Regulation 6 requires that the Union flag is flown at half mast at the specified government buildings following the death of a member of the Royal Family, or of a serving or former Prime Minister of the United Kingdom.
  Regulation 7 provides that where the Union flag is required or permitted to be flown on the specified buildings on the specified days, it may also be flown at any other government buildings on the same day and in the same manner.
  Regulation 8 allows the European flag to be flown alongside the Union flag on Europe Day, at a government building not specified in Part I of the schedule. It also allows the national flag of a visiting head of state to be flown alongside the Union flag on the occasion of a visit by a head of state other than Her Majesty, at a government building other than that or those being visited.
  Regulation 9 prohibits the flying of flags on government buildings other than as provided for by the regulations. That means that the Union flag may not be flown on days which are not specified in the regulations.
  I believe that these regulations are consistent both with the principles of the Belfast agreement and with the wishes of the majority of the people of Northern Ireland, from both traditions, who wish to see flag flying handled in a sensitive, respectful and, above all, non-provocative way. The regulations properly recognise Northern Ireland's place in the United Kingdom, while respecting the concerns of those who hold to a different identity and aspiration. What we are seeking to achieve is mutual respect, both for the flying of the Union flag—and other flags as provided in the regulations—and for those who hold to a different political aspiration by limiting the flying of the Union flag to reflect practice in the rest of the United Kingdom. The flying of the Union flag to provoke others shows no respect for that flag.
  We hope very much that the Northern Ireland Executive will be able to find an agreed solution to this issue, making these regulations unnecessary. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has already given an undertaking that, should the Executive reach agreement, he will revoke the regulations. I am happy to repeat that commitment to this House. The regulations are intended to help reduce tension over this issue, so that the Executive can agree a way forward. If the Executive succeeds in doing so, I shall be happy to return to this House to seek approval to revoke the Regulations. I commend the regulations to the House.
  Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 23rd October be approved [28th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)
  Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I thank the Minister for bringing this order before the House tonight. On reflection, it is sad. But it is not disastrous. Devolution in Northern Ireland has happened; Stormont is up and running; and most people are pleased about that. The fact that on this occasion Stormont and the Assembly were unable to make this particularly difficult decision and bring forward a Bill to decide how and what flags should be flown is understandable to those of us who know and study Northern Ireland politics.
  1196
  The only point I want to make, to be provocative, is that we only need look behind the first page to see who the mischief makers were. It is unfortunate that members of the republican movement took up ministerial posts within Stormont as part of the government process of part of Her Majesty's Kingdom but could not bring themselves to reach agreement with their colleagues on the flags issue. In the light of that I congratulate the Government, in particular the Secretary of State, on grasping this nettle and giving us the leadership we expect from Her Majesty's Government in laying down these draft regulations that we are debating tonight.
  The regulations are right. They bring Northern Ireland in line with the United Kingdom. They ensure that the Union flag is flown on government buildings on occasions where in the rest of the United Kingdom it would be expected to be flown. They ensure that the Unionist population are quite clear and have no argument about the sovereignty of the government of the Province.
  I pose two questions to the Minister. The first relates to the reason the Secretary of State in another place rather than the Assembly had to make these regulations. As the Minister said, Sinn Fein instructed its officials to pull down the Union flag from their buildings. Can the Minister say what sanctions are laid down should, despite this order being passed in your Lordships' House and through this Parliament, they continue on the same road?
  The second question is more light hearted and I hope will be easier to answer. As I understand it, the government buildings—seven in all—where the Union flag is to be flown are clearly designated. Is there anything in the order which covers the movement of the institutions currently in those buildings? If a Union flag is currently flown on a building which houses, for instance, the DoE, and if for some reason in the future the DoE moves from that building, I hope that it will not leave the Union flag behind. I shall be interested to know whether that is covered.
  In general, I welcome the order. Perhaps the best advice one can give—going into the detail in a lighthearted way—to those people managing public buildings where national flags are flown is to provide only one flagpole.
  Lord Shutt of Greetland: My Lords, I rise from these Benches to support the order before us this evening. In the document we received from the Northern Ireland Assembly we again read of the deeply divided society, and it is tragic that what seems to many of us a simple matter of flying a flag is such a problem in Northern Ireland. But we know that it is.
  We want to pay tribute to the Northern Ireland Assembly for having six meetings on the issue and tackling it. Unfortunately, it has not been able to come forward with a united recommendation. It is my belief that the issue would be better settled in Northern Ireland by the people of Northern Ireland. I hope and trust that the regulations are an interim position.

  1197
  I should like to think that flags could be constitutional; they could be diverse but unifying. We could examine where there could be unity. Could there be unity in the flag of St Patrick? Could there be unity in flying the flag of Europe? Could there be unity in a Northern Ireland flag? Indeed, would it be worth while for those in Northern Ireland to have a competition to design a flag under which people in Northern Ireland can unite?
  For the moment, we are faced with the regulations, which we on these Benches support. However, I hope that they represent an interim position and that the matter can be resolved in Northern Ireland.
  Lord Rogan: My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, and many others in the Chamber, I am saddened that we have to discuss the flying of a national flag here tonight. The fact of when and where the national flag is flown in the United Kingdom should not be in issue. As one who lives in Northern Ireland, I deeply believe that it should not be decided by Northern Ireland.
  The national flag should be a national issue—a constitutional issue—it should not be a devolved matter for a regional Minister. Why was it devolved? Was much thought given to the devolution of a quintessential national issue?
  In any event, the parties who signed the Belfast agreement—unionists, nationalists, loyalists and republicans—accepted the legitimacy of Northern Ireland's constitutional position within the United Kingdom. I am disappointed that some of those signatory parties have acted immaturely since the agreement with respect to their obligations to the agreement and have created issues such as flags.
  That we are even discussing the matter tonight is made worse by the fact that there are flaws in the regulations themselves. Those who have shown a lack of maturity on this issue have deliberately misinterpreted the concept of "parity of esteem" in the Belfast agreement.
  It is true that parity of esteem is an essential part of the Belfast agreement, but as the agreement stated:
  "the power of the sovereign government with jurisdiction there shall be exercised with rigorous impartiality on behalf of all the people in the diversity of their identities and traditions and shall be founded on the principles of full respect for, and equality of, civil, political, social and cultural rights, of freedom from discrimination for all citizens, and of parity of esteem and of just and equal treatment for the identity, ethos and aspirations of both communities".
  The reference to sovereignty is singular. The "sovereign government", referred to in paragraph 1(v) of the section of the agreement relating to constitutional issues, is the British Government and it is the British Government who will exercise their power in Northern Ireland,
  "with rigorous impartiality on behalf of all the people".
  Parity of esteem relates to culture, social treatment and political opinion. The constitutional aspects of the agreement are not subject to the concept of "parity of esteem". The constitutional status of Northern Ireland is not subjective; it does not depend on how the
  1198
  individual feels. The constitutional status is a fact and one which was agreed to and endorsed by the Government of the Republic of Ireland by agreeing to amend Articles 2 and 3 of their constitution, in so doing removing their territorial claim to Northern Ireland.
  As the constitutional status is a fact, it is implicit that some visible manifestation of the constitutional status will exist. Flying the British flag over government buildings is a visible manifestation of Northern Ireland's constitutional status. That is implied in the agreement. Therefore, those parties lacking maturity should, in acting responsibly with respect to their commitments, both explicit and implicit, recognise that the flying of the union flag over government buildings on the same days as in other parts of the United Kingdom is part of what they agreed to.
  As I have indicated, it is disappointing to find that these regulations are necessary, even more so that they are flawed. They are flawed in more than one respect. First, the regulations do not apply to Parliament buildings because of the restrictive definition of government buildings. It is also regrettable that the national flag will not be permitted to be flown above the seat of a devolved government within the United Kingdom.
  Will the Minister give an assurance that if no agreement is reached on the issue he will review the situation within a fixed period of time? Otherwise, Northern Ireland will not be treated in the same manner as the rest of the United Kingdom. The Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly are, and will be, permitted to fly the flag of the nation, yet the Northern Ireland Assembly, one of the three devolved legislatures, will not.
  Secondly, can the Minister confirm that effective sanctions will be exercised against Ministers if the flags are not flown in breach of the order or if additional flags are flown in breach of the order? Without an undertaking to use court action against those who breach the regulations, the regulations are a toothless tiger which some in Northern Ireland will always seek to exploit.
  Thirdly, why is it that Schedule 1 lists particular buildings rather than simply the buildings where the Ministers operate from each department in the government? Surely it would be more logical to define the place where a flag is to be flown as the departmental headquarters rather than a particular building. The venue for the departmental headquarters may change over time.
  But it gets worse. Paragraph 9 of the regulations states:
  "Except as provided by these Regulations, no flag shall be flown at any government building at any time".
  Surely, the seat of the devolved legislature, the Parliament building—or as we call it at home, "Stormont"—should fly the Union flag.

  1199
  I return to the Belfast agreement for my final point. It states:
  "All participants acknowledge the sensitivity of the use of symbols and emblems for public purposes, and the need in particular in creating the new institutions to ensure that such symbols and emblems are used in a manner which promotes mutual respect rather than division. Arrangements will be made to monitor this issue and consider what action might be required".
  That is the final paragraph of the section of the agreement on rights, safeguards and equality of opportunity. It is not within the section concerned with constitutional issues and does not extend to the national flag. It is questionable whether within that paragraph any flag, never mind the national flag, constitutes a symbol or emblem.
  Under the Belfast agreement, the principle of consent dictates Northern Ireland's constitutional position, which at this time is within the United Kingdom. Therefore, Northern Ireland shares the national flag of the United Kingdom. Government in Northern Ireland is devolved from the national Government here in Westminster. Northern Ireland has a British devolved government and any flag that represents it, as with the Government here in London, should be the Union flag. It is unfortunate that this matter is even being debated tonight.
  Lord Monson: My Lords, I agree with the thrust of the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Rogan. However, perhaps I may put three specific questions to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, in the spirit of genuine inquiry. The first question relates to paragraph (4) of Regulation 2 which requires—the noble and learned Lord used the word "allows"—the "European flag", which presumably means the European Union flag, to be flown in addition to the Union flag on Europe Day. Does a parallel obligation apply to government buildings in England, Scotland and Wales?
  My second question is related to Regulation 3 which provides that the Union flag may be flown on the occasion of a visit by another head of state. Why "may"? Surely, it would be most unusual, as well as highly discourteous to the visiting head of state, for the Union flag not to be flown on such an occasion.
  I turn finally to Regulation 9 which provides:
  "Except as provided by these Regulations, no flag shall be flown at any government building at any time".
  To anyone who comes from the United States, where the Stars and Stripes flutters over all public buildings 365 days a year, that must seem quite extraordinary. One is talking about an obligation to limit the flying of the national flag perhaps to 19 or 20 days a year, allowing for the occasional royal visit. Will the noble and learned Lord comment on that when he replies?
  Lord Mayhew of Twysden: My Lords, having been untypically critical in recent months of certain aspects of the Government's policy on Northern Ireland, it is only fair that I should stay tonight to congratulate the Secretary of State upon these regulations. I do not for a minute suppose that by doing so I shall make his day.
  1200
  The Government rightly seek reconciliation in Northern Ireland. I take care not to say "produce reconciliation" because that must be found within those who are divided within the community of the Province. All of us in this House wish them well. However, we know that Northern Ireland is a place in which flags and emblems are wont to have highly emotive and generally opposing connotations for each side of the community. Therefore, I do not find it surprising, but share the regret already expressed by noble Lords, that Her Majesty's Government have tabled these regulations tonight. It is not surprising for the reasons which all of us who have had the privilege of studying, let alone living in, Northern Ireland well understand.
  However, to deny the exclusive legitimacy of the Union flag when discussing what flags, if any, shall be flown from the public buildings of this Union is to deny even-handedness. There can be no reconciliation in Northern Ireland unless Her Majesty's Government are seen to act even-handedly. They would not be evenhanded if they permitted the flying of the tricolour alongside the Union flag, because that would be seen as denying the exclusive legitimacy of the flag in what is by law and—of much more recent significance—the consent and action of all those who support the Good Friday agreement, part of the Union. The agreement is the latest, and perhaps most vivid, instrument to uphold the principle of consent in the context of the constitutional status of Northern Ireland. In those circumstances, to argue and demand that the tricolour should have parity of esteem (to coin a phrase) with the Union flag is to act provocatively and in breach of the spirit of the Good Friday agreement.
  I make one additional point on which perhaps I part company with the noble Lord, Lord Rogan. These regulations have been very skilfully drafted and are not all one way; that is, the Unionist way. They exclude certain days when the flag has been habitually flown in Northern Ireland which are not days of obligation in the rest of the United Kingdom. I for one was always uncomfortable with the flying of the Union flag on 12th July. I believed that that served to make it perhaps a partisan flag, whereas it is, and should be, a flag that symbolises the Union under which all who have respect for the law can stand comfortably. Therefore, I believe that that is a skilful and legitimate way to demonstrate even-handedness in these regulations.
  In response to the noble Lord, Lord Rogan, I do not believe that the Union flag is flown over this Parliament as a parliament building—I have given thought to this matter only in the past minute or so—I suspect that the Union flag flies over this building whether or not Parliament is sitting, because it is a royal palace. I am prepared to be told that I am wrong about that. However, I do not believe that there is any departure from uniformity with the rest of the United Kingdom if the flag does not fly over the Stormont building.

  1201
  There must have been much pressure on the Secretary of State from those who oppose the regulations, and I diffidently congratulate him on facing it down.
  Lord Molyneaux of Killead: My Lords, my views are broadly in line with the thinking of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew of Twysden. I echo his congratulations to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, on the intelligent and tactful way in which he introduced the regulations.
  Like all other noble Lords, I note that the Northern Ireland Assembly could not reach agreement on this issue. Given the Assembly's composition, that failure was hardly surprising. Perhaps the lesson is that it is very unwise to involve the Assembly in matters which lie entirely within the responsibilities of the Secretary of State, responsible as he is to the Parliament of the United Kingdom. Having consulted—admittedly in default and not for the want of trying—and having received conflicting advice from the parties in the Assembly, the Secretary of State finds himself quite unnecessarily in a no-win situation—because in Northern Ireland, as in many other areas, there are questions which cannot safely be asked.
  In addition, as the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, said, a serious constitutional point is involved. Under constitutional law Northern Ireland is a part of the United Kingdom. Surely any matter which touches on that fact is solely within the jurisdiction of the Government and Parliament of the United Kingdom. Therefore, it follows that in the Northern Ireland Assembly no Minister in a devolved body has any legal right or function and should not become involved in any issue such as that which is legally discussed by your Lords hips today.
  It is not a question of possessiveness on the part of Her Majesty's Government and Parliament. There is the damage created by inviting the Northern Ireland Assembly to become entangled in arguments over issues on which it can take no actions anyway. It should be appropriate for the Secretary of State to make available to the Assembly the equivalent, perhaps, of a White Paper as a matter of courtesy, but not necessarily to consult. If one consults, one is engaged in a divisive exercise and one gets conflicting answers. To go beyond that matter of courtesy of the publication of the equivalent of a White Paper for the Assembly would lead to damaged relations within the Assembly. It could cause unnecessary friction over legislation in the promotion of which the Assembly and its Ministers could have no legitimate role.
  The noble and learned Lord the Minister expressed the hope that the day might come when powers of this nature might be devolved to the Assembly. While I share his hope that current progress will be maintained, I would caution against the transfer of any powers of concern solely to the Parliament of the United Kingdom. In my humble opinion, it is safer by far to retain all such constitutional matters within the sovereign Parliament, where divisive influences are not generally generated.
  8 p.m.
  Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I, too, find myself in the most agreeable situation of being able to welcome the regulations most warmly. I should like also to pay my tribute to the courage and good sense of the Secretary of State. This is a very wise decision. It must have been a hard decision to take. As a result, I daresay he will continue to receive a good deal of flak. But I am sure that he has done the right thing. It is an enormous pleasure to be able to welcome something so positive.
  Lord Dubs: My Lords, I suppose anyone who visits Northern Ireland and is not familiar with that part of the country will be amazed at the widespread use of flags, flying not just from public buildings but from private houses. In that respect, Northern Ireland is clearly different from other parts of the United Kingdom. It is not just flags, but kerb stones, graffiti on gable ends and so on. It is surprising at how prevalent is the habit of trying to demonstrate one's allegiance by flags and other symbols. Therefore, I appreciate the difficulty that the Secretary of State was in in trying to deal with this issue in the absence of any clear lead from the Assembly or the Executive.
  I share the welcome given by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, to the sensible decision not to fly the flag on 12th July. I am bound to say that the United Kingdom is no longer uniform in respect of flying flags. In Scotland a decision was made to fly the flag on fewer occasions than those listed in the regulations. To express a personal view—I do not wish any disrespect to the individuals concerned—i see that in Scotland the flag is flown on fewer occasions because some of the lesser members of the Royal Family do not have flags flown on their particular days. I was surprised that we have so many days in England. I was not aware that some of the members of the Royal Family have flags flown on their birthdays. I wonder whether it is not worth thinking about that as well in the context of the wider United Kingdom. I say that without wishing any disrespect to the individuals concerned; but we fly the flag a good deal.
  I read with interest the report of the Assembly and its failure to agree. I noticed that the SDLP made one interesting suggestion; namely, that both flags—the Union Jack and the tricolour—may be flown on occasions when there are meetings of the North-South Ministerial Council, of north/south bodies and of the British Irish Council. Given that the regulations contain provision for flying the flag of another country when a visiting head of state happens to be present, that seems worth thinking about. Therefore, the SDLP's suggestion has merit.
  I notice that the Northern Ireland Assembly, without any difficulty, devised its own logo—the flax flower. I am not aware of any dissent. I suppose that what Northern Ireland needs is its own flag, as well as the Union Jack. I am surprised that the Assembly did not think of flying the flag of Saint Patrick on such occasions. I thought Saint Patrick was acceptable throughout the whole community. So I am a little

  1203
  surprised that the report of the Assembly, in so far as I have looked through it, does not contain any reference to the flag of Saint Patrick.
  Lord Monson: My Lords, does the noble Lord not agree that the Union flag incorporates the cross of Saint Patrick?
  Lord Dubs: My Lords, certainly it does. I learnt that when I was a Boy Scout many years ago. Nevertheless, I was pondering out loud as to why the flag of Saint Patrick is not used, given that the flag of Saint George is used on occasions in England. Perhaps it is not used in an official capacity, but certainly I have seen it used on occasions. Having said that, it is not for us to devise flags and symbols. Essentially, the issue is one which we would wish the people of Northern Ireland and their politicians to resolve. I hope they will soon be able to decide such matters for themselves without having them imposed upon them. I appreciate the difficulties of the Secretary of State and I think he has moved forward in the only way possible.
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I am grateful for the support for the regulations which comes from almost all sides of the House.
  Perhaps I may deal with the specific questions raised by noble Lords. The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, asked why it was the Secretary of State and not the Assembly which made the decision. The reason is that the Assembly cannot reach an agreed solution. My right honourable friend in another place has already given an undertaking that, if the Executive is able to reach agreement, he will revoke the regulations. The noble Lord, perhaps less seriously—as he put it—raised the question of what will happen if one of the government buildings moves. If one of the government building moves it will no longer be a government building, so the obligations in relation to flags will not remain in respect of that building. The Secretary of State's order-making power is enough to add additional buildings if that proves to be necessary.
  The noble Lord, Lord Rogan, raised a number of specific points. First, he asked me to give an undertaking in relation to a review. I have already said that my right honourable friend in another place has indicated that if the Executive reaches agreement, he will come back to this House and revoke the regulations.
  Secondly, the noble Lord raised the question of enforcement. There is in the primary regulation under which these regulations were made no power to provide sanctions. It is unlikely that in reality this clear regulation will be disobeyed. However, if it is disobeyed by anyone, it will be a matter for the courts to decide what is the most effective way to enforce the terms of the regulation.
  The noble Lord also asked whether departmental headquarters would be a better criterion for determining specified buildings. We believe that listing the specified buildings is a much clearer definition. I said in answer to the question raised by the noble Lord,
  1204
  Lord Glentoran, that if there is a change that can be dealt with by an amendment to the terms of the regulation.
  The noble Lord, Lord Rogan, raised the question of the Parliament buildings. The regulation does not cover Parliament buildings because they are not government buildings. We cannot include Parliament buildings in the regulation at all; nor do we seek to do so. That is a matter for the Assembly to decide for itself. The regulations do not prevent the flying of the Union flag over Parliament buildings because they do not apply to it.
  The noble Lord, Lord Monson, asked why the regulations do not require the flying of the flag on the visit of a foreign head of state. We believe that it would be better to allow that to remain permissive. In certain circumstances, requiring the Union flag to be flown from the building visited could cause disruption. The noble Lord also asked whether the European flag has to fly on any United Kingdom building. I do not know the answer to that question. Perhaps I may write to the noble Lord in respect of that point.
  The noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, suggested a consultative document on flags, arguing that the Assembly should have no role in relation to the matter. As has been made clear, the powers on flag flying are devolved not just in relation to Northern Ireland but in relation to Scotland and Wales as well. The Secretary of State is able to make decisions only because of the special powers given to him while the Assembly was suspended. We would prefer that the Northern Ireland Assembly itself determined these issues. However, it has not been able to reach agreement and so the Secretary of State, as he indicated he would if agreement was not reached, has determined for himself what he thinks to be the right course.
  Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, asked whether the flying of flags should be reduced, as it has been in Scotland. The position is that the Scottish Parliament has not yet considered the flying of flags on Scottish government buildings. We think that the right course is to reflect what is the practice in the rest of the United Kingdom. That is what the regulations reflect.
  I hope that, with the exception of the one question left outstanding in relation to the noble Lord, Lord Monson, I have answered all the questions raised by noble Lords.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  Immigration Appeals (Family Visitor) (No. 2) Regulations 2000
  8.12 p.m.
  Lord Judd Lord Judd rose to move, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the regulations laid before the House on 13th September be annulled (S.I. 2000/2446).
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, I should like to express appreciation for the presence of my noble friend Lord Bassam of Brighton on the Front Bench.

  1205
  It has been an exacting week—indeed, it has been an exacting few weeks—and he has been playing a very full part in the activities of the House. I am sorry that when he should be having a chance to unwind, or to begin unwinding, for the weekend he is here yet again at a date hour. But I know that he feels as deeply concerned about the issues we will be discussing as I do myself and that he will therefore forgive me for having detained him in this way. I am sorry also that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor is not present, although one understands why it is a little difficult for him to be here, as some of the points that I want to make more directly concern his department than the Home Office.
  I should say at the outset that the restoration, under the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, of the right of appeal against a refusal of a visa to visit family members in the United Kingdom was, and remains, a very welcome development, and one for which Ministers deserve a great deal of credit. The abolition of the original right of appeal by the previous government, in 1993, was strongly contested at the time and subsequently caused considerable anger and resentment among the black and Asian communities in this country. I know that that anger and resentment were keenly felt by Labour Members of the other place, and in the place where it hurts most—their constituency surgeries. Indeed, the understandable concern of such Members was instrumental in the restoration of the appeal right being made a Labour Party manifesto pledge in 1997. As the Labour Party said at the time, and as Ministers have emphasised recently, we live in a multi-ethnic society where many of our citizens have close links with extended family members living in countries other than the UK. Maintaining those links is an important part of their social and cultural life—it is an important part of commitment to the family—and key family events such as weddings, births and funerals are therefore essential to that purpose. It is to ensure that families are not denied the opportunity to be together for such events that these appeal rights were established.
  However, Members of the other place have not been alone in facing the frustration of those whose relatives have been unjustly denied a visa for such events. Citizens advice bureaux workers, who advise more than 50,000 people with immigration problems every year, have been only too aware of the anger and resentment caused by unjust visa refusals and the absence, since 1993, of any appeal rights. That may explain why, at the CAB service AGM on 27th September this year, the 1,250 delegates present debated and unanimously passed a motion deploring the Government's decision to negate the value of the new right of appeal by charging substantial fees to appellants.
  For, under the regulations before your Lordships' House tonight, appellants will have the option of a full, oral appeal hearing, before an adjudicator of the Immigration Appellate Authority, for a fee of £500, or an appeal on the papers only, for a fee of £150. The Government have stated that these sums are necessary to cover the cost to the Immigration Appellate
  1206
  Authority of administering these appeals, both the Home Office and the Foreign Office having agreed to absorb their own costs. The principal concern of the citizens advice bureaux is that these not inconsiderable sums will act to deter some wronged applicants from exercising their right of appeal. That concern is shared by, among others, the Commission for Racial Equality, the Immigration Law Practitioners' Association, the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants, the Legal Action Group, the Immigration Advisory Service, the National Assembly Against Racism, and the Law Society—all are bodies working in the frontline of these issues.
  Although the regulations provide for the fee to be refunded where the appeal is successful, an appellant will of course have no guarantee of success, however strong he or she believes his or her case to be. In short, there is a risk which some of those unjustly refused a visa can simply not afford to take. As the Commission for Racial Equality has noted, those likely to be using these appeal rights often live in conditions of relative economic poverty, and are normally dependent to a very significant degree on their family members in the United Kingdom to finance the visit. And yet many of these family members—and especially those in the Pakistani, Bangladeshi and some Caribbean communities—are themselves among the poorest groups in the UK. For many of those unjustly refused a visa, therefore, the fees will present a substantial barrier to justice.
  In costing the administration of these appeals, the Lord Chancellor's Department has assumed that "the great majority (80 per cent)" of appellants will opt for an appeal on the papers only, for a fee of £150, rather than for an oral hearing, for a fee of £500. Of course, if the fees remain at that level, then this assumption may well become self-fulfilling, to some degree at least. However, this assumption suggests a surprisingly poor understanding of the visa application process. In reality, the great majority of visa decisions turn on the applicant's credibility—as well as that of his or her relatives in the UK. Accordingly, if cost were no object, most appellants would opt for a full, oral hearing so as to give their relatives in the United Kingdom a proper opportunity to demonstrate their credibility before the adjudicator, and to explain how the applicant had been misunderstood.
  The Lord Chancellor's Department has suggested that the more impecunious appellants—that is, those most likely to be deterred by the fee—may qualify for representation funded by the Legal Services Commission, and that this would cover the fee. However, frankly it is very difficult to see how a particularly impecunious applicant, living, for example, in Sierra Leone, would be able to identify a solicitor's firm or agency with an appropriate Legal Services Commission contract, make an application for funding and get a favourable decision under the merits and financial eligibility tests, all within the 28 days allowed for lodging an appeal.
  In recent weeks, the Lord Chancellor's Department has sought to justify the fees for these appeals on the grounds that this "allows for consistency with" the fees

  1207
  regime in the civil courts. The essential point here is that the imposition of fees is entirely inconsistent with the rest of the social welfare tribunal system under which the family visitor appeals will be heard. There are no fees for any other kind of immigration appeal, for employment and social security tribunals, for disability and medical appeals, or for mental health review tribunals. The fees therefore represent a significant departure from one of the underlying aims of the tribunal system; namely, to maximise the access to justice of those who lack the means to mount a conventional legal challenge in the courts.
  Moreover, it is in my view deplorable that the first fees to be imposed under the social welfare tribunal system should impact—almost exclusively—on black and Asian Britons. As the Commission for Racial Equality concludes, this would be,
  "a wholly undesirable precedent for a system of justice in a multiethnic society".
  When my noble friend comes to reply, perhaps he will be able to explain how the impact of the fees on black and Asian Britons is consistent with the duty shortly to be imposed on the Lord Chancellor's Department, under the Race Relations (Amendment) Bill, to eliminate racial discrimination and promote good race relations.
  Until very recently, the Government have sought to justify their decision to impose fees on family visitor appellants on the sole ground that "there is no new money" to cover the administrative costs. In 1997 and 1998, and arguably even in 1999 when the relevant provisions of the Immigration and Asylum Act were debated in your Lordships' House, this position was perhaps understandable, given the Government's then adherence to their predecessors' spending plans. However, circumstances have changed.
  First, following the recent Comprehensive Spending Review, there is now no apparent shortage of "new money" for immigration control. In July 2000, the Chancellor announced an additional allocation of £600 million for immigration control. Even if most appellants opt for an oral hearing, then the annual cost of administering these appeals would still be less than £10 million. And, of course, if the Government's prediction of 19,500 appeals per year proves, as some suspect it may, to be an over-estimate, then the total cost will be even less. Perhaps my noble friend could tell us how many appeals have been lodged since 2nd October. Given the Government's long-standing and very welcome commitment to these appeal rights, I find it difficult to understand why they cannot see their way to covering such costs out of the additional money allocated to immigration control by the Comprehensive Spending Review.
  Secondly, the Government have abandoned their attachment to the notion of a self-financing regime in another area of new immigration policy; namely, and again this is very welcome, the regulation of immigration advisers by the newly-established Office
  1208
  of the Immigration Services Commissioner. In January 1998, the Government's consultation paper stated that the scheme would have to be,
  "fully self-financing, for both its start up and continuing costs".
  However, it is now clear that the great majority of the advisers covered by the scheme will be exempted from the registration fee and that, as a result, the total income from registration fees will cover only a very small proportion of the commissioner's total operating costs.
  In such circumstances, I can see no reason why the Immigration Appellate Authority should pass on even a proportion of its costs to family visitor appellants and I hope that, even at this late stage, the Government may yet be willing to reconsider their approach to these appeals. I beg to move.
  Moved, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the regulations laid before the House on 13th September be annulled (S.I. 2000/2446).—(Lord Judd.)
  8.25 p.m.
  Earl Russell: My Lords, I can confirm what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Judd, about the anger felt in 1993 at the withdrawal of the right of appeal for visitors' visas. I was in my place on this Bench. I still hear, ringing in my ears, the voice of the noble Baroness, Lady Flather, exclaiming, "My brother will be subject to this Bill". She went into the Opposition Lobby and a group of around half a dozen Conservative Peers followed her.
  I was standing next to her in the Lobby when the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, coming late into the Division and inadequately briefed, saw a group of Conservatives and followed them into the Lobby. The noble Baroness, Lady Flather, who is an honourable lady, explained to the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher: "I am sorry, Lady Thatcher. This is not the Conservative Lobby". That is one of my very favourite memories of 12 years in this House.
  The manifesto commitment to restore the right of appeal was welcome. But I am afraid that these regulations can be described only as a partial fulfilment of that commitment. Noble Lords will note that Regulation 4 requires that the money—£500 for an oral hearing or £180 for an appeal on the papers—must be paid on the spot, in the local currency, immediately before the appeal can even be lodged. I ask those of your Lordships who went away on holiday this summer: how many stepped out of the aeroplane with £500-worth of the local currency in their pocket? I can be quite sure that I did not.
  If one is coming over as a family visitor to attend a life event such as a wedding or a funeral—if it is not improper to describe a funeral as a "life" event—then it matters that the appeal should be heard quickly. The process, even if it can be done, of raising £500 in the local currency, will take time. Indeed, there will be a good many people who will not be able to do it. Not everyone who wants to visit a family member in this country has an annual income of £500.

  1209
  The Government are bound, under the judgment in ex parte Witham, to waive or reduce fees for those who are of limited means. I am sure that the Minister will remind us of that obligation and he will urge that it is to be pleaded against a great deal of what we say. However, to do this, one has to find a firm which is approved by the Legal Services Commission. One must contact with that firm, advise it and lodge the appeal within 28 days. Perhaps I may ask the Minister: how many people in Chittagong possess a copy of the list of firms approved by the Legal Services Commission? I reassure the Minister that I do not expect him to answer that question. But if he does not answer it, he will have conceded one of my major points; namely, he will have conceded that the application of ex parte Witham will be extremely difficult, if not impossible.
  I should like to ask the Minister one other practical question. If several relatives, coming together to attend the same event, all appeal, is the fee to be paid for one appeal or severally for several relatives? I hope that the answer will be that it is to be paid for one appeal. However, if I can be given the answer to that question, I shall be extremely grateful.
  My next concern relates to Regulation 2(2), which provides lists of eligible relatives. This represents what I have described in many other contexts as an entirely misguided method of drafting legislation; namely, the method of proceeding by total enumeration of individual categories. When that list is found to be inadequate, it is equivalent to opening the stable door after the horse has bolted. More regulations have to be brought in to introduce more categories. It is much better to use the recommendation of the Renton report on the preparation of legislation and to state a general principle which can then be applied by a court to the no doubt peculiar facts of any individual case.
  The Immigration Law Practitioners Association has tried to do this. It has suggested a formula of,
  "related by blood or marriage or by a relationship akin to marriage".
  It seems to me that that would be applicable.
  But it would apply to all the innumerable hard cases which the drafting of Regulation 2(2) will throw up. To begin with, although it is to be welcomed that it includes an unmarried partner, it does not specify the children of an unmarried partner by a previous union. Of course, within the fact of mortality there must be many such cases. It does not mention the spouse of a nephew or niece. A nephew or niece who wishes to attend a family wedding and is told that they cannot bring their spouse with them will feel what I would regard as a very natural sense of grievance. It is not clear whether adoptive parents are treated as parents. I should be grateful if the Minister could clarify that point.
  It is sometimes supposed that this difficulty in enumerating family relationships is somehow to be taken less seriously because it applies only to the extended family patterns of other countries or to the somewhat disorderly patterns of families of the 20th century. That is not so. I am at present working on an
  1210
  entry for the Dictionary of National Biography of a 17th-century parliamentarian of some standing. His inner family circle included the nephew of his father's first wife. I should say that his descent was from his father's second wife. It also included his niece's husband. In the next generation there is even a close family relationship with the great nephew of the grandfather's first wife. That is a family relationship, even though I have left out what are perhaps the most material words, which in that case are "Bencher of the Middle Temple".
  It goes to show that family relationships may be a great deal more varied than we realise. If the Government do not understand that, they are pickling more rods for their own back than they realise.
  We are told—and the noble Lord, Lord Judd, has reminded us—that the Government claim that there is no new money. The noble Lord has given one reason why that is not so; I shall give another. In the first year of this Government, when they set out to follow the previous Conservative government's spending limit, they tried so hard that they achieved an undershoot of £3 billion. The Treasury, with consummate brilliance, wrote that £3 billion into the permanent public spending totals on which future increases were to be based. The Government did not need to let the Treasury do that. Within that £3 billion was plenty of money to finance the £10 million that the noble Lord, Lord Judd, is moderately asking for.
  When we used to have a right of appeal, the rate of success was between 50 and 60 per cent. It is perfectly possible that half of those will be denied an effective right of appeal by these new regulations. That is an awful lot of injustice. It will apply most severely to visitors from the Indian sub-continent—India, Pakistan and Bangladesh. I wonder whether it would have been applied if these regulations dealt with the category of people who are most numerous in the United States and Canada. I wish I did not have to ask that question. I hope that the Minister can tell me that he will withdraw the regulations and that I can forget about it in future.
  8.35 p.m.
  Baroness Uddin: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Judd, for bringing this matter before the House. I am greatly inhibited whenever I hear the noble Earl, Lord Russell, speak on these matters. He has expressed much more eloquently than I could have what I wish to say. However, for posterity's sake, I shall persist in repetition. I hope that one day the noble Earl will quote what I have said in one of his speeches.
  I wish to make a brief intervention in this important debate which, as the noble Earl said, particularly affects so many British Bangladeshis, Indians and Pakistanis as well others who are settled here but have relatives living abroad.
  I wish to acknowledge the good work of the CRE, the Immigration Advisory Service, the National Assembly Against Racism, JCWI, the CAB, ILPA and so on. It is very important that they have persisted when many of us had taken our eyes off the ball to do other things.

  1211
  I also pay tribute to my right honourable friend the Home Secretary and the Government for having recognised the great distress which was caused by the previous Conservative government when, in 1993, they removed the right of appeal for refused visitors. The refusal, without redress, of entry clearance for relatives of British citizens to come to the UK for important family events made many feel that they were second-class citizens in their own country.
  That concern was expressed in the annual reports of Dame Elizabeth Anson, the independent monitor of refusals that did not carry a right of appeal. Consequently, there was a manifesto commitment to reintroduce a right of appeal, and that was honoured in the legislation introduced last year by the Government.
  I accept also that the definition in the regulations of a family relationship which gives the right of appeal in the event of refusal of entry clearance is sufficiently wide to cover most relatives, although not those of partners who are not married and others mentioned by noble Lords. Perhaps the Minister can tell us why this should be so in these welcome days of non-discrimination in the post-Lawrence era.
  Yet, sadly, I have to speak of discrimination in the prescription of fees for those wishing to exercise their statutory right of appeal. There was, of course, no mention of fees being charged in our manifesto commitment. Had the opposition party called for this, I think our side would have called "foul". Labour's policy handbook published in October 1996 stated:
  "We will recognise that families need to be together for key life events like weddings, births and funerals. At present those refused a visitor's visa for events like these no longer have the right of appeal against the decision. We will restore that right of appeal".
  These fees will deter many people from exercising the right of appeal that the Labour Government quite properly restored. It is small consolation that the fee will be refunded if the appeal is successful. If it cannot be paid in the first instance, what is the point? Some £500 for an oral hearing will have to be paid in local currency at the British post overseas before a person is able to exercise the right of appeal. This is against a fee of £33 for the visa itself. The measure is financially discriminatory against those of modest means. I suspect that the idea of financial bonds for visitors was dropped precisely for these reasons.
  The Parliamentary Secretary in the Lord Chancellor's Department, Mr David Lock, MP, stated in a letter dated 14th September that,
  "the appellant may qualify for representation funded by the Legal Services Commission".
  This would mean having to send out forms to appellants overseas. Sponsors in the UK are hardly likely to be eligible for legal aid if they are able to meet the Immigration Rules requirements to ensure that the visitor is not reliant on additional public funds. Moreover, it is not realistic to expect legal aid to be arranged in the short time-span envisaged for the hearing of such appeals.
  1212
  What troubles many of us is that, if both the Home Office and the FCO have agreed to waive any extra costs for administering this new right of appeal, why cannot the Lord Chancellor's Department do the same? When new rights of appeal have been introduced in the past there has been no requirement to pay court fees; so why now? If their estimate is correct, that of the 19,500 such appeals a year some 80 per cent will be reviewed on the basis of the papers alone, without an oral hearing taking place, the costs will be minimal in comparison with the whole. The 20 per cent of cases in which there are full oral hearings represent some 3,900 appeals, as against the Immigration Appellate Authority's estimate of 57,900 disposals of completed appeals of all types in a full year.
  Never before have the costs of the hearing of a statutory right of appeal in an immigration case been required of a potential appellant before the exercise of that right. Even if all the appeals were unsuccessful and no fees were repayable as a result, the total revenue would be no more than £3.5 million. This Government are not subject to excessive financial restraint.
  It is clear to all of us, and it must therefore be clear to the Government, that those who are most likely to exercise this right of appeal are relatives from the Indian sub-continent. That is why I raise this point. In those circumstances, the measure appears to be indirectly racially discriminatory against persons from certain parts of the world. I find that unacceptable. How does the measure square with the welcome insistence of the Government on access to justice? It can surely only deny people that access.
  In denying access to the right of appeal, will these provisions stand the test of Article 6 of the ECHR? It is argued that court fees are payable in the civil courts. But we are not dealing with the civil courts; we are talking about the Immigration Appellate Authority, which was set up as part of the tribunal system 30 years ago following the Wilson committee recommendations recognising that the right of appeal is especially important when dealing with the exercise of authority by the Secretary of State. That distinguishes it from many other tribunals. Moreover, other fees, such as they are, do not in any way match the magnitude and effect of the fees in the regulations.
  Is it claimed that family visits are less important than other matters for which entry clearance is required and which carry a right of appeal in the event of refusal, such as the right of appeal for those on working holidays? A visit by elderly relatives who have never seen their grandchildren or their home and school—and which may take place only once before their death—cannot be equated with the visits of working holidaymakers, yet the latter do not have to pay court fees.
  Finally, I am concerned about the precedent that is set by the regulations. Will it mean that the Lord Chancellor's Department will wish to start charging fees for other appeals—for example, those regarding family settlement? That would be a retrograde step. It raises further fears among communities, which would appear to be justified if this approach continues.

  1213
  In my humble opinion, there seems to be no moral, let alone any other justification for these fees. That is why there is widespread dismay and anger among the British resident ethnic minority communities. Rightly, they have a strong feeling of betrayal. One questions whether it is really worth antagonising so many of our citizens with this measure.
  In the interests of the values that have guided this Government in the past, as now—caring for those with limited resources, access to justice for all, non-discrimination against the minority communities and their relatives, social inclusion and, more importantly, the right to family life—I urge them to withdraw these fees and, in so doing, restore people's faith in their intentions towards the ethnic minority communities.
  8.45 p.m.
  Lord Newton of Braintree: My Lords, I rise to speak briefly in this important debate. I should like to express my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Judd, for giving us the opportunity to discuss this subject. Perhaps I may say to the noble Baroness in passing that I share her feelings about following the noble Earl, Lord Russell, whose erudition and eloquence I have struggled to match since we first took part in debates together some 40 years ago.
  I should mention that I am currently chairman of the Council on Tribunals. It is a role in which I have had the privilege of succeeding the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell, who has made so many distinguished contributions to the proceedings of this House in that and in many other capacities.
  It will come as no surprise, indeed it will not be news, to the House that the Council on Tribunals has consistently expressed general concern about people being charged fees for exercising rights of appeal. In this case, I can perhaps most easily summarise its position by simply quoting from paragraph 1.27 of its annual report for 1998–99, which states:
  "We welcomed the restoration of a right of appeal for family visitors but were disappointed that it was still proposed to charge a lee in connection with such appeals, albeit that the fee would be refundable if the appeal were successful. The fee could make it difficult for some people to contemplate launching an appeal, and we believe that there may be human rights implications".
  The council is in the habit of choosing muted and measured language, but the flavour of concern in that paragraph is clear.
  The council was not consulted on the detail of the regulations that are before the House. That is not a complaint; I merely want to place it on record. Had it been consulted, I have little doubt that it would have chosen to reiterate the concern it had expressed earlier. I acknowledge that this is speculation, because the council has not discussed this matter recently, but it might have wanted to express particular anxiety about the apparent scale of the additional deterrent to oral hearings; that is to say, hearings where the appellant or his relatives can be heard and seen in person, bearing in mind the excellent point made by the noble Lord, Lord Judd, that it is credibility that is at issue in so many of these cases.
  1214
  The council might also have wished to refer again to a statement at the end of the passage that I quoted about the human rights implications, particularly now that the Human Rights Act has come into effect. I have no doubt that the Government have given consideration to this matter, but it seems especially relevant in the light of what has been said by other noble Lords about the problems that could arise where an appellant has very limited means.
  I shall confine myself to the muted and measured language that the council used in its report and is accustomed to employing. I simply say that I look forward to listening with care to the Minister's comments on the important points that have been made in this debate.
  Lord Weatherill: My Lords, this has been a Week of long nights, even early mornings, and I shall not detain your Lordships for long—least of all the Minister, who has had a heavy week.
  I participate in this debate because, for some 28 years, I represented the constituency of Croydon North East. It is often overlooked that, for about 100 years from 1740, the twin college of the honourable East India Company was in Addiscombe, which was in the heart of my constituency. We therefore had a close association with the Indian sub-continent for many decades. As noble Lords may know, I had the privilege of serving with Indian troops in the last war. I think that I can reasonably claim to have secured my seat in Croydon North East as a result of my declining command of Urdu. I beg your Lordships not to put me to the test tonight. The one phrase that I retained over the years was "Such bolo?"—"Are you telling me the truth?".
  I know from personal knowledge about the importance of family to members of the Indian, Pakistani and Bangladeshi communities. I know that they were deeply wounded and upset when the visa appeal system was abolished in 1993. I also know that they were much encouraged when the present Government, in their 1997 manifesto, announced that they would reassess the situation. It is perhaps worth reminding ourselves of what was said on that occasion. The Labour Party's priorities would be to,
  "extend our commitment to the family to our immigration and asylum procedures. It is in no one's interest that close family members are divided by arbitrary and unjust regulations … [and to] recognise that families need to be together for key life events like weddings, births and funerals. At present those refused a visitor's visa for events like these no longer have the right to appeal against the decision. We will restore that right".
  However, people were not told that the cost would be £500 for an oral appeal or £150 for a written appeal. I suspect that many of those people probably changed their allegiance to vote for the present Government as a result of that commitment. From my personal knowledge, I have to tell noble Lords that they feel let down, misled and even angry.
  As the noble Lord, Lord Judd, and others, have said, these charges will deter all but the wealthy visa applicants. I am well aware that the Government claim that there is no new money. However, as the noble

  1215
  Earl, Lord Russell, said, they have, as a result of good housekeeping, a pot of gold from which they could easily find the £10 million that has been mentioned. I hope, therefore, that the Government will listen to what so many speakers have said tonight, and will no doubt say when I have sat down. If it is not possible to abolish these exorbitant fees totally—although that would be ideal—the Government could at least reduce them, so that the poorest members of our society are not deterred. They are the people, not the wealthiest, who deserve our consideration and our protection.
  Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Judd was quite right to start by acknowledging that the Government deserve credit for restoring the right of appeal that was taken away by the Conservative administration in 1993. I was not a Member of your Lordships' House at the time that the 1999 Act was started, at least in its earlier stages. But, looking back, I note that my noble and learned friend Lord Williams of Mostyn said, when moving the Second Reading of the Bill, that the previous government had removed that right by the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993. He went on to say:
  "We think that that was wrong. The measure in the 1993 Act caused great resentment in ethnic minority communities who had relatives living abroad who wished to visit their family here, and Part IV puts that right".—[Official Report, 29/6/99; col. 179.]
  I am sure that that is a commitment—a pledge—that the Government want to redeem. My noble friend Lord Judd does the Government a great service by having provided this opportunity for them to hear from the noble Earl, Lord Russell, my noble friend Lady Uddin and, indeed, the noble Lords, Lord Newton and Lord Weatherill, how the regulation in this form threatens to create the very resentment that the Government rightly sought to remove.
  Two strands have permeated the remarks that have already been made, both of which are important. One of them is the question of cost; the other is the definition of "family". As regards cost, surely it is important that costs should not be a barrier to justice. I am sure that that is what the Government want to avoid. The sums involved are substantial. They may be substantial for someone living on a modest income in this country, but they will be even more so for someone living in circumstances where wages are that much lower.
  The noble Earl referred to the Witham case in which, as noble Lords will recall, the question arose as to whether or not regulations dealing with fees in civil courts were lawful. On that occasion, the Divisional Court struck down those regulations because they did not even provide for any remission on the grounds of hardship. It has to be said that I do not find even that exception in these regulations. When he replies, I hope that my noble friend the Minister will be able to
  1216
  explain that and give us some reassurance. In giving the judgment on that case, Mr Justice Laws said, in stark and clear terms:
  "Access to the courts is a constitutional right; it can only be denied by the government if it persuades Parliament to pass legislation which specifically—in effect by express provision—permits the executive to turn people away from the court door".
  The concern in that case was in relation to courts and court fees. I recognise that it may be said that there are differences between a right of appeal to a tribunal or an adjudicator and a court right of appeal. But I do not regard that as an attractive argument. The fundamental point remains the same; namely, that the Government wanted to give back a right that had been taken away and, therefore, it is right that the opportunity has been taken to hear how concerned people are about whether that is what these regulations will achieve.
  The point in relation to the definition of "family" is also important. The noble Earl rightly said that there are two ways of dealing with this matter. By way of example, the Human Rights Act takes the non-enumerative approach to what is a public authority. As I understand it, the fact that the definition of "family" is too limited may be a further cause for resentment in communities where the family is extended in a way that may not fit neatly into the definition provided in the regulations.
  This is an important step. It is equally important that people should be confident that the right of appeal has effectively been returned to them. Therefore, I hope that my noble friend the Minister will be able to provide some reassurance that the arguments put forward tonight will be taken into account and addressed.
  Lord Dholakia: My Lords, I was very much tempted to deliver my contribution in Urdu for the benefit of the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill. However, I do not think that the Hansard writer would appreciate it. I shall, therefore, continue in my usual way.
  Perhaps I may begin by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Judd, for raising this most important issue. The one thing that has emerged very clearly from this debate is the sheer anger of people regarding the way that this particular measure has been introduced. But at the root of this is something that one has to understand: it is effectively creating a culture that says, "We don't believe you when you apply for entry clearance or a visa. If you disagree, you can appeal. But, if you appeal, you will have to find the money". In effect, we are creating a culture that refuses to believe that a large number of people may wish to come to this country as visitors. That is what is behind it.
  Those of us who have for the past 30 or 35 years dealt with immigration cases in this country can tell the Minister that there is an insatiable appetite on the part of entry clearance officers to question people from ethnic minorities and to put very little faith in the answers given. The result is the number of appeals about which we are talking. But even that process will be denied to many.

  1217
  My noble friend Lord Russell started his remarks with an anecdote, so perhaps I may also add mine. At one time, I was involved in the investigation of the immigration control procedures while working for the Commission for Racial Equality. As part of that formal investigation, we were entitled to examine files at British posts abroad. Some of the comments in the files made it absolutely clear that no one would obtain justice, no matter what they tried to do. I do not blame the present Government for that. That occurred in the late '80s.
  I refer to a case that occurred in the early days of the entry clearance procedures. We should remember that young people who wanted to come to this country were subjected to questioning. Two young brothers applied to the British consulate in Islamabad for entry clearance. They were given two separate dates for interview. The entry clearance officer gave the elder brother entry clearance and stamped his passport accordingly. At that time all kinds of questions were asked. A few weeks later the younger brother went to the consulate to apply for entry clearance. He was asked the same questions but his answers revealed a discrepancy. The elder brother was asked how many chickens his family kept in their yard. He replied that they kept eight. However, the younger brother said that they had seven. The entry clearance officer did not give the younger brother entry clearance because of that discrepancy until someone explained that the family were so overjoyed to hear of the elder brother's entry clearance that they had slaughtered one of their chickens to celebrate.
  That incident says something about the culture that has evolved in this area and the damage that such a culture can cause. I could mention case after case to illustrate the point. I have served in this country as a Justice of the Peace and as a member of a board of visitors. I have taken up cases where entry clearance officers have refused to grant visas to people. My pronouncements as a Justice of the Peace and as a person who has adjudicated on prisoners' complaints are accepted, but entry clearance officers were not prepared to accept my assurances on the genuineness of people's applications.
  The culture that emanates from decisions of this nature can be extremely harmful. I ask the Minister to study the report of the Commission for Racial Equality, which contains 54 major recommendations. It will tell him a hell of a lot about how the system works with regard to those from ethnic minorities. We are talking about people who want to exercise a right. How often are people in this country reluctant to pursue a legal right because they do not have the resources to do so? Even if we have the resources, we may be reluctant to spend that money when we do not know the final outcome of our action, irrespective of the strength of our case.
  The noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, was right to mention the Labour Party manifesto. Given that a general election will be called in a year or so, what will those who will campaign for the Labour Party tell members of ethnic minorities with regard to the right we are discussing? The point at issue is that fee
  1218
  payments discriminate against poorer people— in this case, people from the Indian sub-continent. There is a deep-rooted suspicion that the Government are indirectly sending out a message that they are not happy with the introduction of an appeals mechanism. That is a shame, because if there is one thing in which this country can take extreme pride it is the machinery—unlike that of any other country in the world—which gives people the right to appeal against a decision which they feel is unjust. Why, then, do the Government want to impose the kind of restriction that may result in people losing that right?
  I mention one of the most frightening aspects of the proposal. The Government grant aid to the Immigration Advisory Service. That body makes representations on behalf of people who wish to appeal against decisions of entry clearance or immigration officers. Over 50 per cent of the appeals that have been pursued by the Immigration Advisory Service have been successful. If that is the rate at which people's initial applications have been refused, there must be something wrong with the system. In the case of the 50 per cent of appeals that are pursued by the Immigration Advisory Service, the people concerned have had to fork out money to exercise their right to have their appeal heard. To my mind that cannot be right.
  We are not talking about flooding the country with primary immigrants. We are not even talking about asylum and refugees. We are talking about people who want to visit this country, perhaps to attend a funeral or a wedding or to participate in religious activities. We are creating a system whereby we put obstacles in the way of those people. If the procedure is to take three, four or five weeks, no one will apply for visitor clearance to attend a funeral or a wedding as the ceremony will be over long before they get clearance. We are creating a system that penalises people who try to exercise their rights. If this was a matter of primary immigration, I could understand that objections would be raised. However, we are talking about the right of an individual to pursue an application which he or she feels has been unjustly dealt with. I find it difficult to understand how the Labour Party could have produced this proposal.
  I remember the late night discussions on the then Immigration and Asylum Bill when the Government advocated a bond scheme. I remember the complaints about the detrimental effect that such a scheme could have on poor people or people from ethnic minorities. The Government did not listen. They said, no, they believed that it would work to the advantage of people from ethnic minorities. After sheer pressure from ethnic minorities the Government had to reconsider that policy.
  My advice to the Minister is this. For the sake of £3.2 million—that is overall the revenue the Government would receive—and when considering the harassment that would be caused, remember that one is asking people to pay money which is equivalent in many cases to a year's salary or wages in order to appeal against a decision. How can anyone justify such a decision?

  1219
  I am conscious of the time. I suggest that it may be appropriate for the Minister to consider the issue and to admit that the Government are mistaken in what they have done.
  Lord Cope of Berkeley: I am sure that the whole House—that is, the whole House except perhaps the Minister, for whom we may all have sympathy on this occasion—is grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Judd, for bringing the matter before us today
  The noble Lord, Lord Judd, has demonstrated the hollowness of the Government's manifesto commitment in 1997. They may have followed the letter of their promise but, as has become very clear in the course of the debate, they have made it meaningless in practice for most of the people concerned. For those involved, this is immigration for the rich—or visits for the rich. If the family budget can afford to risk an extra £500 for the family wedding, funeral, or whatever the occasion is, then welcome to Britain: if not, forget it.
  I remember in another place the difficulties of the Bill in 1993. But I can also guess the reason for this policy. Jack Straw wanted to put it in the manifesto, but it was not cleared by Gordon Brown, so would-be visitors must pay in advance and in 28 days. Therefore, of course, there will not be many appeals. In effect, for most of the people involved, this Government have the same policy as the former government but they try to pretend that it is different. This debate has shown up that pretence.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Bassam of Brighton): My Lords, contrary to what the noble Lord, Lord Cope, might believe, I, too, am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Judd, for providing us with the opportunity to debate these regulations. I always think that it is right that government should be obliged to explain themselves. This debate provides the perfect opportunity to do that. It has been a distinguished debate, with contributions from many distinguished Members of your Lordships' House. I have taken careful note of all the contributions.
  The regulations deal with two questions: first, the definition of a family visitor; and, secondly, the fees to be charged to deal with the administration of an appeal in the event that the application for a visa is unsuccessful. It may be helpful if I explain in broad terms how we expect the system to work. Since 2nd October, people who have been refused a visa to visit members of their family in the United Kingdom have been entitled to a streamlined appeal against the refusal.
  The definition of a family member is set out in Regulation 2(2) of the Immigration Appeals (Family Visitor) (No. 2) Regulations 2000. It is widely drawn and includes stepfamily, adoptive relatives and unmarried couples. If I needed reminding, today has made it patently clear that there has been some disquiet about this definition on the basis that it will exclude some people who could be construed to be
  1220
  "family members". But the whole point of this procedure is to ensure that applications are dealt with quickly and the genuineness of the relationship must be able to be assessed without undue delay. The more distant the relationship to the sponsor, the more difficult it is to assess the genuineness of that relationship quickly. Documentary evidence may not be easily available or may have to be obtained from a variety of sources in order to piece together the family tree. Entry clearance officers—they have a difficult job to do—will have to make more extensive inquiries in connection with issues of credibility. The definition must be manageable so that we can process the application and the appeal in time for the visit to take place, otherwise there would be little point in having family visitor appeals.
  The fee for administering an appeal in the event of an unsuccessful application has been set at £150.
  Earl Russell: My Lords, I respect and understand the pursuit of certainty on which the Minister is engaged, but I ask him to read the Renton report on the preparation of legislation, which explains why the pursuit of certainty in this method is almost always self-defeating. When he has done that, I wonder whether he could ask his department to read it, too.
  9.15 p.m.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, as always, I am grateful to the noble Earl for his intervention. I shall consider his wise words carefully.
  As I said, the fee for administering an appeal has been set at £150. Some 90 per cent of all short-term visa applications are successful. We are talking about only the small percentage of unsuccessful applications.
  Lord Judd: My Lords, that is a broad statistic. Given the ethnic dimensions of the debate, is it not important to say a little more about the breakdown of the 90 per cent and the 10 per cent and where the burdens fall?
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, as always, the noble Lord, Lord Judd, asks a useful and valuable question. I do not have that information. I have only recently managed to get hold of the statistic that I have just given the House. It shows that most applicants are believed and are successful. We are not saying "no" to visa applications. That needs to be borne in mind, particularly as the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, pointed out that historically the operation of entry clearance officers has perhaps been seen as racist.
  Lord Dholakia: My Lords, I did not use that word. I never accused anybody of being racist.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I take that point, but that was the implication of the noble Lord's observation.
  I wanted to make it clear that most visa applicants are successful. An appellant can usually expect to receive a decision within six weeks of lodging his or her

  1221
  appeal abroad, if the immigration appellate authorities deal with it on papers alone. An oral hearing is available, but, as it could also involve witnesses giving evidence, it will cost appellants £500 and the appeal will take around three weeks longer to deal with. We believe that most appellants will opt for the quicker and less expensive route. Most applicants will want to know as soon as possible whether to proceed with their plans to visit this country, particularly those wanting to visit for an important event such as a family wedding.
  It is also reasonable to suppose that such applicants will apply for entry clearance at least three months in advance. If they do so, there should be plenty of time to deal with any appeal.
  I recognise that many of your Lordships are concerned about the decision to charge for family visitor appeals. We have to explain that decision. For a visitor appeal right to be meaningful, appeals must be processed swiftly. Under the new arrangements, family visitors will get preferential treatment. We think that it is right that they should pay for it.
  However, providing a priority service has associated costs. Family visits do not have the same fundamental importance for those concerned as some other cases have. For example, asylum applicants often claim that their lives are at stake. Those cases make up the majority of appeals before the immigration appellate authorities. We must not allow those appeals to be prejudiced, even for the benefit of others. It is vital that visitor visa appeals pay for themselves to ensure that the new work that the right of appeal creates does not eat into the resources needed to deal with asylum.
  Litigants in most cases in the mainstream civil courts have to pay court fees, which they may recover from the other party if they win the case. The fee will be refunded in all cases when the appeal is allowed. There is no reason for anyone with a good case to be dissuaded on cost grounds. The fees are based on an estimate of the total costs to the immigration appellate authorities of dealing with a projected 19,500 appeals. Those costs include judicial fees and salaries as well as staff costs. The oral fee includes courtroom and interpreter costs, and allows for the fact that the hearing is likely to take significantly longer than the time spent simply on consideration of the papers.
  In almost all cases where a fee is charged for government services, that fee is based on the principle of full-cost recovery. Court fees are no exception. There would be no other rational basis for setting the fee level. Nevertheless, when estimating the cost of a new service such as this, there is considerable room for uncertainty. Following this summer's consultation exercise in which we proposed fees from the middle of the range, we decided to base the fees on the lowest possible estimate.
  As I said, we expect the majority of appeals to be handled on paper because most people will want a decision to be taken as speedily as possible. If the appeal requires an oral hearing, the appellant may qualify for representation funded by the Legal Services Commission. That funding would cover the appeal fee.
  1222
  Those who seek financial help from the commission will have to meet the relevant financial eligibility and merits test.
  All appellants will be eligible to seek the assistance of the Immigration Advisory Service. The services of the IAS are free to all appellants, regardless of their means. They extend to providing representation at appeal hearings, although not to paying the appeal fee. As of May 2000 the cost to the public of providing an Immigration Advisory Service representative was £772.89 per hearing completed.
  All visitors who come to the United Kingdom must meet their travel costs. For those who come from outside Europe, those costs are likely to amount to several hundred pounds. In order to obtain a visa at all, they must show that they are able to meet the costs of their maintenance and accommodation while in the UK.
  In the past, the immigration system has been prone to lengthy delays. We have done much to rehabilitate it, streamline it, and make it more efficient and more effective. Those efforts continue. However, family visitor appeals represent a large amount of new work. Without new funds, the immigration appellate authorities could be overwhelmed and our much-needed reforms jeopardised. Family visitors themselves would have to endure lengthy waiting times which would ruin their plans to visit.
  After a year—I believe this to be an important commitment—we shall review the arrangements and costs and issues such as the definition of what may or may not be a family member. That review period is important. However, for the moment, we have a system that we believe will be not only fair and just, but will work and be sustainable. That must remain the priority.
  During the debate a number of questions were asked, and I shall try to work through some of the important points raised. My noble friend Lord Judd raised the question of indirect discrimination. We do not consider that the fees could or would amount to indirect discrimination under the Race Relations Act 1976. First, we are not aware of statistics which show that it would bite disproportionately. I believe that that is an important consideration. Secondly, even if it did bite disproportionately, it would be justifiable. The aim of the fees is not in itself to discriminate; it is to cover the cost of appeals and to allow family visitor appeals to be processed more rapidly. We believe that the level of fees is appropriate to meet that aim.
  My noble friend also asked how a person would cope in terms of obtaining legal advice within 28 days. We expect family visitors to be helped by their sponsors. The relationship with their sponsors in the United Kingdom will be very important. I believe that consular advice will also be available and, where there is a question over whether they can make or lodge the appeal within the 28-day period, the adjudicator can be invited to extend that period. Therefore, there is room for flexibility.

  1223
  My noble friend also suggested that fees marked a significant departure in immigration appeals. I can only reply that Parliament intended fees to be charged when it passed the Immigration and Asylum Act. We made that clear at the time, and that was the view of Parliament.
  My noble friend Lord Judd also suggested that this was a new duty to be covered by the Lord Chancellor's Department. The new duty relates to the Race Relations (Amendment) Bill which amends the original Race Relations Act to put the LCD, among others, under a duty not to discriminate. We fully accept that duty.
  My noble friend also asked how many appeals so far have been lodged. We do not yet know how many have been lodged overseas. So far, only one appeal has been received at the Immigration Appellate Authority. But the right of appeal applies only to visas refused on or after October 2nd and the 28-day period for lodging such appeals has only just passed.
  The noble Earl, Lord Russell, asked about the Witham judgment. This judgment concerned fees restricting the right of access to a court. There is no right of access in this country for family visitors, so Witham does not apply.
  The noble Earl also asked how immigration lawyers would be found with LSC contract. It is worth repeating that consular advice would be available. For those with access to new technology, the LSC contract is promoted through its website. I made the point earlier that the sponsor in this country would be well placed to seek information and to guide a relative who is seeking to exercise their right of appeal.
  I have answered the point about adopted relatives; they do fall within the definition of family members (Regulation 22) by virtue of the Adoption Act 1976.
  The noble Earl, Lord Russell, also asked about appeals and how many appeals one family group should make. We would expect it to be just the one appeal, the outcome of which would decide the case for the other family members.
  My noble friend Lady Uddin cannot be here to hear my answer to her point. I shall try to settle one question that she asked, which was whether it was secondary legislation within the spirit of Article 6 of the ECHR. Article 6 does not give a right of access to the courts in respect of immigration disputes. That has recently been confirmed by a judgment of the European Court of Human Rights at Strasbourg.
  We believe that these regulations will be workable. We believe that they are just, fair and proportionate. We think that they do conform—to pick up the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Newton—with our human rights obligations. However, it is open to anybody who believes that they do not conform with these, to make an appeal based on the application of the Human Rights Act. Of course that would be a more narrowly confined basis for a case.
  I have listened with great interest to all points raised during this debate. It has been a distinguished one. It is right that these matters be aired now. I have given a
  1224
  commitment, in your Lordships' House, that these regulations will be kept under review. I would also be grateful to any noble Lords who, outside the confines of this debate, would care to raise any particular concerns with me about how the appeals system works. We would find that most helpful and constructive. This debate has been very useful and we shall reflect on the important points and criticisms made of the new system.
  For my part, as a government Minister, I am proud that we have stuck by our manifesto commitment. It was an important one. I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Cope, that this is a measure which undermines that commitment in any way, shape or form. People will see and understand this as giving effect to that manifesto commitment. It was utterly shameful that the original appeals system was abandoned in the way in which it was. We have done all that we can to right that wrong and much more in the field of race relations. I am proud of that fact too as a Minister.
  Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, both the noble Earl and I raised the question of remission or mitigation in the case of particular hardship. Do I understand from what my noble friend said about the Witham judgment that that is not something which is even to be considered? It did not seem to me that the regulations at present permit that, although it may be that there is some way of achieving it. It may be that my noble friend would prefer to answer that at some other time, and if so I am happy for him to do so, but I wanted to raise that matter.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I can give an answer to your Lordships this evening. The noble Lord's understanding of the regulations and the legislation is accurate. The provision does not permit remission of the fees in those circumstances. I gave a commitment that we shall be reviewing the fee levels within the next year. Perhaps that is an issue that we should also take into account as part of that review.
  Lord Judd: My Lords, first, I repeat how much I appreciate the fact that the Minister, with all the pressures that are on his time, has come here tonight and has listened in his characteristically patient way. I thank him also for the very full way—he always does this—in which he has tried to respond to the points made.
  I am extremely grateful to all those who have participated in the debate. My noble friend was right to say that there have been speeches of distinction and significance. I am sure that he will have noticed that not a single speech was in support of the present situation. Every single speech from all parts of the House questioned the present situation.
  Anger has been referred to, and it is important to notice that it has been anger not only on the part of the communities who were told that they were to have this right of appeal and then found this financial barrier to what they believed was their right but on the part of the people working with them in this country. It is significant that more than 1,000 of the people working

  1225
  in the citizens advice bureaux attended their annual general meeting and voted unanimously against the policy because of what they are encountering in the work that they are doing in the front line.
  It is terribly important that the Government should listen to what been said in this debate and what we have been trying to represent as the feeling outside this House. I hope that my noble friend will draw this debate to the attention of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, because it is important that he should focus on what has been said this evening and what is felt by many of those for whom we have been trying to speak tonight.
  I shall withdraw the Motion. I have heard what my noble friend—and he is a friend—has said about reviewing the situation. He talked about flexibility. I hope that the Government might be more flexible and say that they can conduct the review before the end of
  1226
  the one-year period. I do not see why they must stick rigorously to that. I should hope that the situation could be reviewed much more rapidly than that.
  The point with which I wish to conclude is that I do not doubt my noble friend's deep personal commitment to good race relations. I do not question my noble friend's commitment to his vision of what society should be. And I do not question the Government's commitment either. But we must recognise that if there is rhetorical aspiration and the practical experience of people is not in tune with that rhetorical aspiration, the situation becomes more bitter, not less. Therefore, to make a success of race relations in this country and to make a success of the aspirations which are expressed by the Government it is essential to have effective policies which demonstrate at all levels that when we wish the ends, we also wish the means and are determined to provide them. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  House adjourned at twenty five minutes before ten o'clock.

  Rural Policing
  Rural Policing
  Prisons: Purchase of Computer Equipment
  Prisons: Purchase of Computer Equipment
  Police Officers: Retirement on Health Grounds
  Police Officers: Retirement on Health Grounds
  Electoral Registration Form: Distribution with Additional Material
  Electoral Registration Form: Distribution with Additional Material
  Criminal Record: Definition
  Criminal Record: Definition
  General Abacha: Assets
  General Abacha: Assets
  Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974
  Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974
  London String of Pearls Millennium Festival
  London String of Pearls Millennium Festival
  Sir Richard Branson
  Sir Richard Branson
  European Council, Biarritz
  European Council, Biarritz
  Parliamentary Scrutiny of Treaties
  Parliamentary Scrutiny of Treaties
  BBC World Service: Relocation to Broadcasting House
  BBC World Service: Relocation to Broadcasting House
  British-Russian and British East-West Centres: Annual Report
  British-Russian and British East-West Centres: Annual Report
  Kosovo: Hydraulic Lifting Equipment Export Licence
  Kosovo: Hydraulic Lifting Equipment Export Licence
  UNHCR: Accounting Discrepancy
  UNHCR: Accounting Discrepancy
  UNHCR: MINDER Asset Management System
  UNHCR: MINDER Asset Management System
  UNHCR: AssetTrak System
  UNHCR: AssetTrak System
  Millennium Dome
  Millennium Dome
  Post Office Company
  Post Office Company
  German Parcel
  German Parcel
  Departmental Cars
  Departmental Cars