Sitting of 22 November 2000

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
Oral Answers to Questions
  INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

    Flood Relief
    Mr. Mike Gapes: If she will make a statement on her Department's contribution to flood relief. [138066]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Mr. George Foulkes): We have responded to a large number of floods during the past year, including in Venezuela and Mozambique, and more recently in India, Vietnam and Cambodia. We are continuing our work to strengthen OCHA, the United Nations co-ordinating agency for emergencies, to ensure that international help is well deployed. We are also helping developing countries that are particularly prone to natural disasters to prepare for them in their development plans.
    Mr. Gapes: I am grateful for that reply. Does it not show that the problems that have been experienced in recent weeks by many of our constituents in this country are as nothing compared with the terrible problems experienced globally by people in Mozambique, India and Bangladesh and throughout the world? Does it not also show that serious international efforts need to be made to deal with the climatic causes of such events, so that the lives of millions of people are not put at risk in the future?
    Mr. Foulkes: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Although we are not able, by statute, to operate in the United Kingdom, during the recent floods we offered the assistance of our expert personnel and some vehicles were deployed to help other Departments.
    My hon. Friend's point is correct; for example, the situation in Mozambique is already beginning to create cause for concern. The first heavy rains of the season started a week ago; there is flooding in Zambezia and Nampula—nine people were killed overnight. Our contingency planning means that we are ready to respond; a multi-agency planning group, including the Ministry of Defence and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, met recently. The Royal National Lifeboat Institution and the UK fire and rescue team are also involved. Our emergency response team is monitoring the situation daily. We have
    292
    seconded someone to Maputo to work with the United Nations development programme, so we are more ready to deal with the floods than we were last year and we hope to respond even more effectively than we did then.
    Mr. John Bercow: What proportion of the flood victims are still housed in accommodation centres? How many of them are suffering from either cholera or malaria? Further to the helpful information that the hon. Gentleman has just given the House, how do those figures compare with the position 12 months ago?
    Mr. Foulkes: I do not have the immediate figures to hand, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that I shall write to him with answers to his specific questions. We are extremely anxious to ensure that, wherever possible, such floods do not recur, and that if they do so, they will not have such disastrous effects. That is why we are helping with reafforestation and other programmes to try to ensure that when there is flooding, it is not as devastating as it has been in the past.

    Flood Relief

      Burundi
      Ms Oona King: If she will make a statement on her Department's aid projects in Burundi. [138104]
      The Secretary of State for International Development (Clare Short): Burundi is still at war despite Nelson Mandela's efforts to facilitate peace. Our support is therefore confined to humanitarian assistance. We have contributed more than £41 million since 1994. We stand ready to provide appropriate support if peace is agreed, but are not in a position to take a leading role in Burundi. We shall also of course be providing considerable support through our European Union contributions.
      Ms King: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. She will be aware that, since the outbreak of the civil war in Burundi in 1993, 200,000 people have died. What assistance might the Government be able to offer the peace process in Burundi? Might Burundi benefit from funds from the conflict prevention fund for sub-Saharan Africa?
      Clare Short: I agree with my hon. Friend that the suffering in Burundi is great; in fact, 20 per cent. of the population of Africa are affected by conflict. That is devastating for the people of Africa and holds back human development. We must all do more to resolve conflict wherever we can.
      We are already helping the Burundi peace process, through technical support and inputs to the peace negotiators. The pooled fund is intended to cause the Ministry of Defence, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and my Department to work more actively together to resolve conflict; some of the funding already provided to Burundi has gone to the notional funding for that, so it is likely that we shall help in that way. However, the point of the fund is to make a strong impact through the UK's efforts in resolving conflict in Africa.
      Mr. Bowen Wells: Burundi is one of the least developed countries and would benefit from the everything but arms initiative from European Commissioner Pascal Lamy. That is greatly to be

      293
      welcomed. Is the right hon. Lady aware, however, that that initiative, which is to be decided as early as 5 December at the ministerial meeting in Brussels, would in fact result in impoverishing some African, Caribbean and Pacific countries—in particular those that produce sugar, bananas, rum and rice?
      Clare Short: The hon. Gentleman seems to be taking two slightly contradictory positions. The least developed countries—most of which are in Africa and thus benefit from the African, Caribbean and Pacific tariff options—make up 0.4 per cent. of world trade. Those are the poorest countries in the world. Pascal Lamy's proposal, which we strongly support, is that those countries should be given improved access to the European market. A campaign has been mounted by countries which produce sugar, bananas and rum, and which feel threatened. We shall obviously look into any adjustment help that is needed. I do not think that the least developed countries—least of all Burundi—will be able to build up their exports quickly—until peace is achieved.
      Ms Tess Kingham: This morning I had a very enjoyable breakfast with the World Service and heard about the World Service's Great Lakes lifeline project, a regular radio broadcast in Burundi that is funded by the Department for International Development. Does my right hon. Friend believe that such radio broadcasts can contribute to the peace-building process in Burundi, and will we continue to fund peace-building media projects that disseminate the peace message through civil society?
      Clare Short: I hope that my hon. Friend's children enjoyed the broadcast as much as she obviously did. Such broadcasts are very important. In Rwanda, hate radio played an enormous part in building up the hate and lies that generated the atmosphere that led to the genocide. The same sort of thing happened in the Balkans. Now that radio technology has become so flexible, we are increasingly trying to deploy it to get truth through to people in situations where there is a lot of conflict, and a lot of dishonesty that feeds that conflict.
      Dr. Jenny Tonge: Does the Secretary of State agree that the continuing war in the Great Lakes region is a destabilising factor in Burundi? Does she also agree that the free flow of small arms into that region is a major factor in continuing that war? What pressure is she bringing to bear on her Government to introduce the promised legislation on the control of arms brokers?
      Clare Short: I very much agree that the war in the Great Lakes is causing enormous destabilisation and involving many countries in Africa in conflict. Small arms are circulating around the continent of Africa that are manufactured within the continent, not imported, so we must do more to extract small arms, using different initiatives such as the one in the Southern Africa Development Community and the one in west Africa. The Government strongly support and will introduce the legislation to which the hon. Lady refers, although I cannot say exactly when.

      Sudan
      Sandra Gidley: If she will make a statement on her Department's aid policy to Sudan. [138105]
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Mr. George Foulkes): Since 1991 we have provided £217 million in humanitarian relief in Sudan, but 1.5 million people have died in the war and the suffering of the people continues to get worse. Our priority is therefore peace. We are working diplomatically to strengthen the Intergovernmental Authority on Development peace process and we have made it clear to local Church groups and non-governmental organisations that we are keen to fund any peace-building activities that they suggest to us. Unfortunately, the interest of regional leaders in a peace settlement remains very weak.
      Sandra Gidley: Does the Minister agree that there is acute underdevelopment in southern Sudan, and that development aid should be provided in many areas where there is now relative stability? Problems such as poor education and lack of access to health care can be addressed. To that end, how many proposals from non-governmental organisations has the Department supported, and what plans are there to support such organisations specifically in future?
      Mr. Foulkes: We plan to spend £4 million in humanitarian assistance in the current year and we are looking forward to receiving proposals from Church groups and NGOs. Unfortunately, they have not come forward as quickly as we should like, and we are doing everything that we can to encourage them. If the hon. Lady, who may have contacts—or any Member of the House—will encourage them to come forward, we shall be very receptive to any proposal that would help in the peace process, would help with humanitarian assistance or would help poor people in Sudan in any other way.
      Mr. Tony Worthington: The Minister is right to draw attention to the aid effort, which has probably been going on for 30 years, and the amazing work that has been done from Lokichokio in northern Kenya to supply aid, which is incredibly expensive. The solution can only come by the political route. My hon. Friend has mentioned the lack of concern by the other countries in the region, because some solution must come from there, but can he give us an up-to-date report on the response of the Sudanese Government to the situation in a country that has been torn apart by war?
      Mr. Foulkes: We are certainly continuing our efforts and working with Norway and the United States in particular. However, there has been a setback recently. The visit of Susan Rice, the assistant Secretary of State from the United States, was very unhelpful and risked setting back the peace process. We urge the Sudanese Government not to respond negatively to the visit. We hope that the peace process will get back on track as quickly and as effectively as possible.
      Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: Of the 48 least and less-developed—LLD—countries, 21 produce sugar, and Sudan has the largest sugar production among them. If the European Commission's

      295
      everything but arms—EBA—initiative goes ahead and Sudan and other countries have duty-free, quota-free access for sugar to the European market, it is very likely that other African, Caribbean and Pacific countries will be driven into poverty. Will the Minister elaborate on the Secretary of State's response and tell us what assessment the Department has made of the impact of the EBA initiative on aid policies in Sudan and other African countries? Does he really support an initiative which, as it currently stands, will probably relegate several Caribbean countries to the very LLD status that the policies seek to alleviate?
      Mr. Foulkes: No one is more sympathetic to the problems of the Caribbean than our Department, this Government, my Secretary of State and myself. We have been involved with the bananas problem and with issues relating to rice, rum, sugar and other products. Conservative Members have a strange sense of priorities. The hon. Lady spoke about it in Westminster Hall the other day, the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) asked about it earlier and the hon. Lady now raises it again. The whole purpose of the everything but arms scheme is to help the poorest countries of the world, which make up only 0.4 per cent. of world trade. They contain the poorest people in the world, so I should have thought that they would have been made a priority by Conservative Members, as they have by the Government.

      West Bank and Gaza
      Mr. Richard Burden: If she will make a statement on the effects of her Department's aid to promote improved health and living standards in the West Bank and Gaza. [138106]
      The Secretary of State for International Development (Clare Short): We are working to support the Palestinian Authority to prepare for statehood as part of the middle east peace process, now tragically stalled. This work includes helping the Palestinian Authority to deliver better basic health services and to improve access to essential water and sanitation services. Closure of the west bank and Gaza has, however, led to continuing economic decline.
      Mr. Burden: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply and draw her attention to a meeting that is being hosted by Christian Aid in the House this afternoon to highlight the situation in the middle east. Will she join me in refuting the ridiculous stories that have been placed in at least one national newspaper purporting to say that British aid is being used to fund terrorism? In refuting that, will she join me in saying that we cannot have full economic development for the Palestinian people while they are denied the human rights that most of us take for granted, while they cannot move freely around their own land, while their schools are shelled by Israeli troops and while they are forced to live in communities that often resemble Bantustans? Will my right hon. Friend join me in saying that the international community must redouble its efforts to accompany its aid programme by ensuring a durable and lasting peace in the middle east that is based on United Nations resolutions?
      Clare Short: I am glad to have the opportunity to confirm that, despite the claim in the News of the World,
      296
      the technical assistance and the equipment provided to Palestinian schools in no way support terrorism. It is disgraceful to call into question that help with such slurs and lies, which were not checked with anyone in my Department. I also agree—I would have thought that the whole House did—that the situation in the middle east is tragic and dangerous and that life cannot improve or prosper for either the Israeli or Palestinian people as long as the conflict continues. We desperately need a just peace and we need it as soon as possible. It will come in the end, because neither side can achieve victory through military means. The conflict is a tragedy for both peoples.

      Africa
      Jane Griffiths: If she will make a statement on her Department's plans for addressing violent conflict in Africa. [138108]
      The Secretary of State for International Development (Clare Short): Of the 44 countries in sub-Saharan Africa more than 20 are affected by conflict. This causes suffering and impoverishment to 20 per cent. of the population of Africa and blights the economic development of the whole continent. We contribute directly to many African and international peace-building efforts. Following the comprehensive spending review in July, a joint Department for International Development, Foreign and Commonwealth Office and Ministry of Defence committee has been established with a pooled budget to try to strengthen the effectiveness of the UK's contribution to conflict resolution in Africa.
      Jane Griffiths: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Will she clarify how the new African conflict prevention joint pool will work? How will the British Government thereby help to play a greater part in conflict prevention in Africa?
      Clare Short: I am sure my hon. Friend will agree that those terrible figures, which reveal the extent of conflict in Africa—the suffering that results from it and the block on development that it constitutes—show that the whole world needs to do better to resolve conflicts. Many conflicts are not between states, but between failed states that are involved in banditry over diamonds, for example, and the people there cannot do anything to bring about peace without outside assistance. The pooled budget brings together the efforts of our separate departments in Africa to see whether, by sharing analysis country by country and establishing priorities, the United Kingdom, through its work at the UN and elsewhere, can do more to resolve conflict, starting, of course, with Sierra Leone.
      Mr. Laurence Robertson: The right hon. Lady rightly mentioned that conflicts hold up the development aid that we provide. Will she comment on the conflict in Ethiopia with relation to development aid?
      Clare ShortI can indeed—in fact, I flew back overnight from Ethiopia. We are pleased, and the UN is optimistic, that the peace between Ethiopia and Eritrea is deepening, and we expect peackeepers to be deployed soon. Ethiopia is, I think, the poorest annually on food aid. We must have to create development. We need

      297
      development aid that invests in improved economic performance followed by trade that builds up the economy and enables people to Work. We are hopeful that the War is over and Ethiopia can get back to development.
      Mr. Tom Clarke: In view of the circumstances of violence and civil war in many parts of Africa, does my right hon. Friend accept that the Government's humanitarian aid programme is very commendable? Does she also agree, given the evidence of the need for access to education, particularly for girls, and for infrastructure to provide electricity and telecommunications, that it is essential to have a programme of sustainable development, especially in sub-Saharan Africa?
      Clare Short: I agree with my right hon. Friend that where people are affected by conflict and the quality of their lives is deteriorating, we must provide humanitarian relief. The tragedy is that that does not bring a solution. Sudan has had a prolonged war and received masses of humanitarian aid, but there have also been many deaths and the war has displaced many people whose lives are getting ever harder. Humanitarian aid is as essential as Elastoplast, but we need a much bigger effort to end conflict so that resources can go into development and building the economy instead of continuing the suffering.
      Mr. Gary Streeter: The Secretary of State is consistently right on many matters—[Horn. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Labour Members may want to wait until the end of the question before cheering.
      The right hon. Lady is consistently right that for the poorest people in Africa, the key consideration is achieving peace in their country. We can all be very proud of the part that British troops have played in peacekeeping activities in Africa over many years. Can the right hon. Lady confirm the clear statement in the German press that the European rapid reaction force is to operate within a 4,000 km radius of Brussels, which will take in vast areas of Africa? What future role does she see for that force in countries such as Ethiopia, Sudan, Sierra Leone and others? Was her Department consulted before the decision to sign up for it was taken?
      Clare Short: When the hon. Gentleman started his question, I thought that for a change we might be able to exchange compliments, but sadly that is not so. Anyone who intelligently observed the trouble in the Balkans and Kosovo, and the contribution that Europe made to that conflict on our own borders and our lack of heavy lift equipment to get our troops there, knows that European armed forces need to co-operate. That is the intention so that we can do our job properly in our own continent and take seriously our international responsibilities. Anyone with any sense should be proud of that development.
      Mr. Streeter: The right hon. Lady has clearly not been properly briefed about the 4,000 km radius of the ERRF. My question was about Africa. Is the right hon. Lady not concerned that our capacity to help bring an end to violent conflict in Africa will be seriously undermined, either by the new army focusing narrowly on Europe, or by overstretching our armed forces so that UN peacekeeping for operations such as Sierra Leone become impossible?
      298
      Have the Government thought through the implications for a wider development capacity of signing up to the Euro-army at the same time as trying to remain part of NATO, conduct operations such as the one in Sierra Leone, take part in UN peacekeeping activities and have troops available to help in humanitarian disasters? Is not the truth that the policy is not just shortsighted for Europe but has its dangers for the people of Africa?
      Clare Short: It is very sad that, with some strength in its historical record, the Conservative party is becoming so neuralgic about Europe that it is making itself completely stupid. In the post-cold war world, we must clearly be better at peacekeeping and prevention of conflict in our near abroad. European countries co-operating in that effort must be good for all parts of the world.[Interruption.] I am afraid, again, that the hon. Gentleman is heckling, so he cannot learn. If he listened, he might be a bit wiser.
      Mr. Desmond Browne: Does my right hon. Friend agree that countries with a poor record in protection of human rights also tend to be those with high levels of violent conflict, and that the protection of human rights is in itself a method of conflict prevention? If she does, will she confirm that both her Department and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office will include in their pooled resources support for human rights projects in sub-Saharan Africa?
      Clare Short: I agree very much with my hon. Friend. Conflict is often caused when one group in a country tries to take the political power and all the economic resources—not sharing them fairly—so that other people feel the need to use force to get justice. That is a very frequent cause of conflict in poor countries.
      I confirm that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has prioritised human rights in his Department's work, and that in complementing that, my Department focuses on the human rights of the poorest. Our Government have paid increased attention to that important issue.

      EU Trade Preferences
      Dr. Vincent Cable: What proposals she has for reforming the EU' s generalised system of trade preferences for developing countries. [138109]
      The Secretary of State for International Development (Clare Short): The European Commission is reviewing the generalised system of preferences, which allows access to the European market for developing countries that do not have any other preferential trading arrangements. The UK has been one of the most active member states in pushing for improvements. We are pressing for reductions in the complexity of the system and to increase the level of market access—especially in the areas of agriculture and textiles.
      Dr. Cable: Does the Secretary of State agree that the once idealistic system of trade preferences has been enormously devalued by the proliferating red tape and numerous exemptions given to protectionist interests in European agriculture and industry? Will she commit the British Government to a radical reform that will roll back

      299
      trade barriers for developing countries in general and provide unrestricted access for the world's 48 poorest countries?
      Clare Short: I agree very much with the hon. Gentleman. The GSP is good but very complex, and there is evidence that many countries do not take up their preferences because it is so unclear that they have them. So, the system is clearly not working well. I agree also that there are protectionist instincts in some EU countries.
      I agree with the hon. Gentleman in his fine book on globalisation, which I have read, that opening up trade in a way that enables countries to adapt will enlarge the world economy for us all, particularly the poorest countries.
      Mr. James Paice: Nobody would deny that opening up trade to the least developed countries is bound to be to their advantage, but may I take the right hon. Lady back to the issue of sugar? It is not right simply to say that because such countries have only 0.4 per cent. of world trade, the market should be opened to everybody. To pauperise some of the underdeveloped world in order to help another part will not achieve anything. Will she have another look at the Government's support for the inclusion of sugar in EBA—there should at least be a proper impact assessment and the ACP countries should be properly consulted.
      Clare Short: I am shocked that although the Conservative party claims to be in favour of free trade, when it comes to a specific provision for the poorest countries in the world, it is suddenly against it. As I have said, I do not agree with Conservative Members. The historical record—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) should listen instead of heckling. The ACP treaty—Lomé—gave Africa privileged access to the European market, but the poorest countries did not take it up because they had other difficulties with their economies, such as the incidence of conflict and with transport. The arrangements will help them, but there will not be a massive take-up. In the meantime, because of the World Trade Organisation bringing down tariffs right through the international system, the countries that depend on preferential systems will adjust anyway. We will look to that adjustment and look to help them. The hon. Gentleman and his party should think again about questioning this help to the poorest countries in the world.

    PRIME MINISTER
    Mr. Speaker: Before I call the first question to the Prime Minister, I wish to make a short statement. Questions to the Prime Minister should be brief. Long introductory statements cut down the time for proper scrutiny of Government. Questions should concern matters for which the Government are responsible. Those which relate to Opposition policies or to the activities of local authorities are inappropriate. I hope that brief questions will be followed by brief answers. Finally, I appeal to the House for much less noise. That will help me to keep the exchanges in better order.
    The Prime Minister was asked—

    PRIME MINISTER

      Iraq
      Q 1. [138133] Dr. Norman A. Godman: If, when he last met leaders of other NATO member states, matters relating to military operations and non-military sanctions against Iraq were discussed.
      The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): We maintain regular contacts with allies over sanctions on Iraq.
      Dr. Godman: While people everywhere regard Saddam Hussein and those around him as evil men—men who should face trial at an international criminal court in the future—does my right hon. Friend agree, however, that there is deep concern everywhere over the dreadful misery inflicted upon the Iraqi people by the sanctions regime? Has not the time come for the Government to agree to support the case for the suspension of sanctions, even though that might cause anger in Washington? Sanctions have to go, do they not?
      The Prime Minister: The problem is that while Saddam continues to try and develop weapons of mass destruction, it would be a serious mistake to lift those sanctions. However, I should point out to my hon. Friend that of course we are concerned about the humanitarian situation in Iraq. Some $16 billion will be available to Iraq for food, medicine and infrastructure development this year alone, but I can tell my hon. Friend that in every month over the past six months, Saddam has imported more than 300 million cigarettes and 28,000 bottles of whisky. He could have spent the money on food and medicine for his people, but he chooses not to do so. That is why we will make sure that every possible bit of humanitarian relief gets through to the Iraqi people, but we cannot act in a way that would allow him to be a menace to that part of the world again.

      Engagements
      Mr. Nicholas Winterton: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 22 November.
      The Prime Minister: This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall have having further such meetings later today.
      Mr. Winterton: The Prime Minister regularly refers, quite rightly, to the importance of law and order, and the importance of the defence of the realm. Is he not a little concerned that he might go down in history as the Prime Minister who destroyed the most effective police force in the world—the Royal Ulster Constabulary—and undermined the most successful defence alliance of all time—NATO?
      The Prime Minister: No doubt we will discuss the European defence initiative later. NATO is fully in support of the European defence initiative—[Interruption.]. I know that that is an inconvenient fact to Opposition Members, but it is the truth. In respect of the RUC, we decided as part of the Good Friday agreement that we would have an

      301
      independent commission headed by a former chairman of the Conservative party who was also a former Northern Ireland Minister. The commission produced a series of proposals which are not designed to undermine the RUC, but are designed to make sure that we can attract people from all sectors of the community into the police force of Northern Ireland. That is manifestly, I believe, in the interests of all in Northern Ireland who want people, whether they are Catholic or Protestant, nationalist or Unionist, to join the police service of Northern Ireland.
      Mr. Jonathan Shaw: In welcoming the extra £1.8 million that the Government have given to the East and West Kent health authorities to help with winter pressures, may I tell my right hon. Friend that there is a bid to the Department of Health for an extra £750,000—at least—to assist with the care of the elderly over the winter? Is my right hon. Friend able to assure me that Health Ministers will examine the issue seriously so as to give confidence to elderly residents throughout Kent that services will be paid for and available?
      The Prime Minister: I can certainly give my hon. Friend the assurance that we are putting record additional resources into the national health service. Indeed, several hundred million pounds are going into the NHS and social services to deal with the winter crisis. As for my hon. Friend's constituency issue, I shall come back to him on his request. By contrast with the Conservatives, who would cut public spending on our main services, the Government are committed to getting in that investment.
      Mr. William Hague: Does the Prime Minister agree with the person who said:
      The French and Germans want the Western European Union to be merged into the European Union. This would undermine NATO…?
      The Prime Minister: Yes I do agree with that. The proposals made in 1997 would have meant that NATO and European defence ran alongside one another rather than European defence being an issue where NATO as a whole did not want to be engaged. It is for that very reason that we sought changes in the policy, and secured them.
      Mr. Hague: It is no good the right hon. Gentleman's pretending that what is on the table now is different from before. What he said was an ill-judged transplant operation. What he told The Guardian would undermine the US commitment to Europe. Has the right hon. Gentleman seen the comments of General Sir Peter de la Billière, who commanded our forces in the Gulf war? He said that
      it is difficult to comprehend how we are to meet the increased commitments implied in these proposals … without seriously weakening our commitments to NATO.
      Should we not put our faith in someone who led from the front in the Gulf war rather than in people who ran from the front in the cold war?
      The Prime Minister: Perhaps it would be as well to agree with the Chief of the Defence Staff, General Guthrie, who said:
      I've never heard anyone in authority in the chain of command in this country, whether they he ministers or servicemen, talk of a European army, navy or air force. There is an argument that a strong, more assertive Europe will undermine NATO. I think that wrong. A Europe that remains allied to the US simply because of its own weakness is of limited value.
      In addition, NATO has supported the proposal. What is more, the US President, the Secretary of State for Defence and the Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright, have all supported it. The idea that the proposal undermines NATO or the US relationship, when NATO and the US Government have supported it, is a proposition that could only come from the Leader of the Opposition.
      Mr. Hague: The Prime Minister likes to say that there is no European army. Mr. Prodi of the European Commission said:
      I'm not joking when I call it a European Army.
      He added:
      You could call it Mary—Ann, you could call it Margare—a good name for an Army and an even better one for a Prime Minister
      a Prime Minister who believed in a strong defence of this country.
      Is it not clear that we are faced with a political project? The French Prime Minister said:
      If we manage to achieve this in the year 2000, we will have crossed a milestone to the creation of a united political Europe.
      Is it not obvious—[Interruption.] I shall wait for some order. Is it not obvious, in the words of four Foreign Secretaries, that it is an openly political project that will weaken and challenge the NATO alliance?
      The Prime Minister: Interestingly, on Sunday the right hon. Gentleman was on the Dimbleby programme. When asked whether he would withdraw Britain's contribution to the force, he said:
      Well this of course depends on what happens at the time that we take Government.
      What has changed between then and now? The right hon. Gentleman put his finger on it when he mentioned Margaret. She has come out and told him what to do, and suddenly the bandwagon has become armour-plated. I gather that the right hon. Gentleman now has to sum up his policy in six words. Here are six words for him: "Lady Thatcher, you lead, I'll follow."
      Mr. Haguerose—[Interruption.]
      Mr. Speaker: Order. There is far too much noise in the Chamber.
      Mr. Hague: The Prime Minister's whole life has been a bandwagon, from selling out to unilateralism in the 80s to selling out to federalism today. We have been doing our own research into quotations from the past. Just before the Prime Minister joined the Labour Front Bench, the magazine "Sanity", of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, said:
      Parliamentary Labour CND supports the removal of all nuclear weapons from British territory.

      303
      That was signed by M Beckett, AN Benn and ACL Blair. The Prime Minister has gone from sanity to vanity in one short career. Now, against the advice of the former commanders of the British Gulf war forces, the leader of the Falklands taskforce, the commander of the US fleet in the Mediterranean, the former Secretary-General of NATO, and the former Chief of the Defence Staff, we are getting the expertise of people whose military experience consists of waving placards at American air bases. Does the Prime Minister think that all those people are fundamentally dishonest?
      The Prime Minister: Let us return to the facts. First, there is no proposal for a European army, which was made clear by the statement that was made three days ago:
      This process … does not involve the establishment of a European army.
      Secondly, there will be a European defence operation only when NATO chooses not to be engaged. Thirdly, there is a complete British veto on whether there is any European defence operation, and specific British consent has to be given to each individual mission. The idea that British troops are going to be marched off by the Brussels Commission in a euro-army is just a euro-scare.
      The Tories are raising this because they have lost on the economy and on boom and bust, they have lost on public services, which they are committed to cutting, and they have lost on poverty, which they are committed to increasing. So they come back to the issue of Europe. We will support the true national interest, which is to be engaged and constructive in Europe, fighting for Britain's interest, but seeing our European partners as allies not opponents.
      Several hon. Members rose—
      Mr. Speaker: Order. I am going to call the Leader of the Opposition again. He must not be shouted down, as that brings the House into disrepute.
      Mr. Hague: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Was not the real reason the Prime Minister did a U-turn by committing a quarter of our Army, a quarter of our Air Force and half the Navy to a European army revealed yesterday by the French Foreign Minister? He said:
      Tony Blair can't go as far as he would like because [of] public opinion in his country … on the euro, but on defence he saw he could move. He … changed the British position.
      Is it not true that this has nothing to do with the defence of our country, but everything to do with going with the flow in Europe and building a European superstate?
      The Prime Minister: Again, on the facts, it is the case that there can be no use of British troops without specific British agreement to each and every mission. If the right hon. Gentleman is saying that UK troops should never fight alongside other troops or—as this is limited to peacekeeping and humanitarian missions—be engaged except with NATO, may I point out that, since 1990, there have been 23 separate military operations, of which 20 have not been under UK command, and 17 have been non-NATO. How can it be right that our troops can perform alongside those from Argentina, India, Pakistan, Nigeria right round the rest of the world, but not alongside French and German troops? That is absurd. We will carry
      304
      on having complete control over British forces wherever they are used. This is not against NATO. On the contrary, as has been pointed out by NATO itself, it helps to give us an extra option when NATO chooses not to be involved.
      Mr. Hague: We simply agree with the former Labour Chancellor and Secretary of State for Defence, Lord Healey, who says:
      The alliance is a proven and effective tool for crisis management. Why replace it?
      Do we not have, for the first time ever, the defences of the nation being sacrificed to the political vanity of one party and one man? He is creating a European army in everything but name, building a European superstate in everything but name, and unless he is stopped he will leave us with a United Kingdom only in name.
      The Prime Minister: As usual, when it comes to the pre-prepared jibes, the right hon. Gentleman is fine, but when it comes to the argument, he does not have an argument as to why British troops should not be alongside others in this way. The argument was put best in this way:
      Our objective must be to strengthen the European pillar of the Alliance and improve European defence co-operation If we wish to … ensure that our views continue to be given due weight by future US Administrations, the European Allies must find answers to some difficult questions: Are we able to take on a larger share of the responsibility for our defence? … The answers make it evident that such problems have to be tackled jointly.
      Who was the author of that pamphlet? It was the submission made in 1984 to the European Council by the then leader of the British delegation, one Margaret Thatcher. I rest my case.
      Mr. Gordon Prentice: The Government have just received a dividend from Railtrack of £300,000 in respect of their 0.2 per cent. shareholding. Will my right hon. Friend use that money to increase the Government's equity stake in the company?
      The Prime Minister: No, but with the private sector, we are making a record investment in our transport infrastructure, which it desperately needs. As the Treasury White Paper showed today, Britain is seriously under-investing in schools, hospitals, transport and the police. That is why we are proposing such a huge increase in capital investment in Britain. That is why it is so wrong for the Conservative party to be committed to cutting that vital investment for our public services.
      Mr. Charles Kennedy: May I bring the Prime Minister back to an item of domestic policy, rather than wider European policy? Incidentally, it is quite ironic that the Leader of the Conservative party wants to speak about European policy on a day when it has become clear that he cannot even command his own MEPs, who are joining us.
      With regard to the Government's education policy and the position in the schools, will the Prime Minister confirm the statement that has been put on the record by the Department for Education and Employment: that the ratio in our secondary schools between pupils and teachers is worse now than when he took office?
      The Prime Minister: Yes, the ratio is 0.3 worse than it was in 1997. Those class sizes had been increasing for]

      305
      about 10 years before that. We had to decide where our first priority was. As we said in our election manifesto, our first priority was to get money into primary schools and reduce infant classes. That is why the pupil:teacher ratio in primary schools has fallen. We are putting a substantial amount of extra investment into secondary schools, but it is less of a priority there than it has been in respect of primary schools.
      Mr. Kennedy: I thank the Prime Minister for that straightforward reply. Does he agree that many within the education sector, as well as the parents themselves, concerned about their children, feel that there is a sense here of robbing Peter to pay Paul? Will he also acknowledge that, simply to return to the position that we were at in terms of class sizes and pupil:teacher ratios in 1997, an extra 9,000 teachers are urgently required for the education sector?
      The Prime Minister: That is precisely why we have been increasing investment in teacher training. It is also why, earlier this week, the first rise in teacher recruitment for eight years happened and why we will be recruiting some 28,000 additional teachers this year. As for robbing Peter to pay Paul, that is simply not correct. There is a huge increase in overall investment in education. I remind the right hon. gentleman that he stood at the last election on a manifesto commitment to put an extra 1 p on income tax to pay for education. The extra education spending that we are putting in is four times that amount.
      Mr. Patrick Hall: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, whatever the noise or silence in this place, the issues that matter to the British people today and in future will be the economic stability and competence, the increasing job opportunities and the decent health and education opportunities delivered by the Government? Those are the issues that will matter, and not the hysterical diversionary antics of the barmy army that is the Conservative party today.
      The Prime Minister: I agree with that one—those remarks were uncontroversial. However, the serious point made by my hon. Friend is that we have clear choices: between stability or a return to boom and bust, between investment in our public services or cuts under the Conservatives, and between action on poverty—such as the £200 winter allowance and free TV licences for over-75s—and the Conservative proposals to scrap those schemes, as well as the new deal and the working families tax credit. That is a difference not only of policy but of fundamental values and philosophy.
      Mr. Michael Jack: At the last general election, the Prime Minister promised the people of Preston more police officers. Currently, one in 10 of Lancashire's officers are either sick or on light duties, and the officers promised via the crimefighting fund will merely replace those who are retiring. Will the Prime Minister explain to the people of Preston when they will get extra officers to meet the rising tide of violent crime in the town?
      The Prime Minister: I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman managed not to point out that crime has fallen in that particular police force area. He is, of course,
      306
      correct about police officer numbers, which is why we are putting in the extra money to recruit more police. Conservative proposals, however, would mean cutting that investment in police.
      Mr. Jack indicated dissent.
      The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman says that that is not his party's policy. Let me quote remarks made by the shadow Treasury spokesman last Wednesday; he said that it was true that the Tories were not committed to Labour's spending plans. So we know that, if the Conservatives were elected, they would cut back on those plans.
      I am surprised also that the right hon. Gentleman did not mention the Eurofighter project, on which thousands of jobs in Preston depend. [Interruption.] Yes; thousands of jobs depend on the project. Now the shadow defence spokesman is putting a question mark over it, no doubt because it contains the word "euro". I think that people in Preston will be interested in that as well.
      Mr. Alan W. Williams: Does my right hon. Friend agree that global warming is the biggest environmental challenge faced by the world, is difficult to tackle and has far-reaching consequences? Britain has a good record on the matter, as does the European Union, but the United States is finding it difficult at the Hague summit to commit itself to making genuine reductions in carbon emissions. What does my right hon. Friend have to say to the American delegation in The Hague?
      The Prime Minister: I hope that we can agree in The Hague on the importance of keeping to the Kyoto targets on climate change. We have had enough experience, not only in this country, but around the world, of the need to take action on climate change. This country will be at the forefront of that. We will comfortably meet our targets by 2010 and many other countries will also do so. It is obviously essential that the United States, which has the largest economy in the world, should also be committed to taking action. I hope that we can secure agreement in the next few days. It is vital for the future of the world.
      Mr. Graham Brady: Will the Prime Minister undertake today to veto the proposed treaty changes at Nice which would extend qualified majority voting to cover worker representation, including co-determination? If those changes become law, they will allow the imposition of worker directors on boards.
      The Prime Minister: This may come as a shock to my hon. Friends, but the answer to that question is, yes, we would veto those proposals. We will be in a far stronger position because we will not be taking such an absurd line—ours is set out in Government policy. Because we are not vetoing every change, including those that are in our interest, we are, as ever—as a result of what we do—more likely to secure our objectives.
      Mr. Donald Anderson: Back to European defence. Now that the Americans have made their position clear—William Cohen, the United States Defence Secretary in October last year and, on Monday,

      307
      Madeleine Albright—is it not just a little arrogant and patronising of the Opposition to say that they know United States interests better than the United States does? Since all the European North Atlantic Treaty Organisation members that are not part of the EU—
      Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that he is asking about the Opposition's policy, but it is not for the Prime Minister to answer for that. Will he rephrase his question?
      Mr. Anderson: Since all the European NATO members that are not part of the EU have pledged contributions to the force, what sort of political signal would be sent if, as the Leader of the Opposition suggests, we withdrew? Would not a withdrawal be a sign of a new isolationism?
      The Prime Minister: Of course it would be absolutely disastrous. If the Opposition went to the European summit and said that they would withdraw from European defence co-operation even if NATO and the United States were in favour of it—of course, they already have their proposal to block any enlargement of the European Union unless the rest of Europe agrees to a treaty change—the rest of Europe, to a single entity, would say that it would not accept that. That would alienate not merely all the people inside the European Union, but all the people waiting to come into the European Union.
      Here are some quotes that we will not read in some of our best-known newspapers. This is one from the United States Deputy Secretary of State:
      We want to see a Europe that can act effectively through the Alliance or, if NATO is not engaged—
      [Interruptionl]—listen—
      or, if NATO is not engaged on its own. Period. End of debate.
      The other quote is from William Cohen. He is the United States Defence Secretary, so perhaps he knows a little bit about United States defence policy. This is what he said just a few weeks ago: "We agree with this" policy—that is, European defence co-operation—
      not grudgingly, not with resignation, but with wholehearted conviction.
      Mr. John Greenway: Is the Prime Minister aware of the deep anxiety felt in the UK sugar industry—among both growers and manufacturers—at proposals for reform of the EU sugar regime? Does he agree that while the everything but arms proposals are well intentioned, they could devastate both African and Caribbean as well as Pacific producers? Why should Britain suffer quota cuts in sugar when we have only 50 per cent. self-sufficiency and other member states have a massive surplus?
      The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point and, yes, we are concerned about the proposal. I gather that there was a debate on it a short time ago. Of course, that is precisely why it is important that, if we wish to influence the proposals coming out of Europe, we are constructive, we are engaged in Europe and we have a leading role in Europe. So many different items come up, day on day on day, that it is important
      308
      that this country remain in a position from which it is capable of influencing the rest of Europe, which is precisely why I believe our policy is right.
      Dr. Stephen Ladyman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there are probably about 800 people with autistic spectrum disorders in his constituency, but that it is not possible to produce exact figures because no one collects them and there is no agreed mechanism for screening people with autistic disorders or for collating the figures? Will he put his support behind initiatives to collect such data, to agree an objective method of screening and assessing autistic people, and to apply it to children at an early age? Will he put the Government's resources behind supporting those children?
      The Prime Minister: Autism is one of the least understood, but most frightening and difficult conditions, for families in particular, to contend with. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise the importance of the issue. We are committed generally to more resources in this area and we also support strongly the work of a £350,000 research programme being undertaken by the British Medical Research Council. I shall certainly look at other ways in which we are contributing to that, and perhaps I could write to him about that.
      Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Will the Prime Minister, along with the Home Secretary, review the way in which the Criminal Cases Review Commission deals with its work? Is he concerned, like me, that it took some time for the commission to refer the case of Stephen Downing, who has been in prison for some 27 years, to the Court of Appeal? Will he also ensure that, when a review takes place, bail can be granted straight away?
      The Prime Minister: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving some notice of his question. If I may, I shall choose my words carefully in responding to him. I understand that Mr. Downing's case is complex. The commission was asked as part of its review to explore many lines of inquiry, which, I am told, it was at pains to investigate thoroughly. Early in the review, Mr. Downing's representatives told the commission that they wanted fresh and more detailed representations on his behalf. These were received in July 1999, and they are carrying on their review in the light of those representations. In the light of the hon. Gentleman's raising it with me, I will take a personal interest, in the sense of finding out exactly what the current position is in respect of the case, and I will contact him about it.
      Mr. John Smith: Having just arrived from the NATO parliamentary assembly meeting in Berlin, may I tell my right hon. Friend that a resolution was passed by NATO parliamentarians unanimously supporting the creation of a European rapid reaction force? Does he agree that the main reason why they did so is that such a force would enhance NATO's military capability—a capability that was dangerously undermined by the Conservative party when in government?
      The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Of course the support of NATO parliamentarians

      309
      probably will not be reported in many quarters here, but it is true that they support the creation of that force, where, as I say, NATO as a whole is not engaged. One of the best examples, and one of the reasons why it is supported, was Bosnia between 1992 and 1995, where for years British and French troops struggled with others to try to maintain peace. America, and therefore NATO, did not wish to be involved, yet we did not have the proper European defence capability to engage in that mission successfully. It is precisely for that reason that, in a
      310
      sensible and mature debate, it would be recognised that NATO remains the cornerstone of our security, but it is important, where NATO is not engaged, to have a European defence capability.
      Mrs. Teresa Gorman: This not an answer but a lecture.
      The Prime Minister: I am sorry it is a lecture, but the hon. Lady needs one.

European Defence Co-operation
3.33 pm
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon)rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Hon. Members should leave the Chamber quietly.
Mr. Hoon: With permission, I should like to make a statement to the House about recent developments in European defence co-operation. There are those who, in recent days, have frankly become a little over-excited, and I should like to set out the facts and separate them from the Euro-sceptic fiction.
Our aim is the improvement of European military capabilities to deal with the security challenges now facing us. The enhanced capabilities will be available to the countries concerned, to the European Union and to NATO. This is a key step towards achieving our goal of strengthening the European pillar of NATO and encouraging our European partners to do more.
This is an aim that everyone in the House should share. It is about making it easier for British armed forces to deploy in a multinational context—a routine requirement of modern operations. I spent this morning with the Royal Regiment of Wales and the Royal Green Jackets, currently serving in Paderborn in Germany. They emphasised to me the number of recent occasions when they had been deployed alongside other European forces from Holland, France and Italy.
I should like to set out what we have been discussing this week at the capabilities commitments conference in Brussels. Last year, it was agreed at the Helsinki summit that European Union nations should, by 2003, be able to deploy rapidly up to 60,000 ground troops to meet the full range of crisis management tasks. Those troops could contribute either to NATO-led operations or, if NATO as a whole was not engaged, to a European-led crisis management mission.
Over the past two days, European partners—both in the European Union and outside it—have been identifying the type and level of forces that they may be able to make available for Petersberg-type operations. It would not be a standing European army. It would be a pool of potentially available national forces. It is envisaged that there would be full transparency and consultation with NATO as a potential crisis develops. It would then be for contributing countries to decide whether, when and how to deploy their armed forces. No country would have to take part. A British Prime Minister, answerable to this House, will always have the final say over the use and deployment of British armed forces.
NATO is and will remain the cornerstone of European defence. It alone remains responsible for the collective territorial defence of its member states. The European Union has stated repeatedly that its aim is to have the ability to conduct military crisis management operations only when NATO as a whole is not engaged. Nothing that has been done in the European Union this week changes any of that. For the foreseeable future, such major operations would draw on NATO assets and use NATO operational planning and command structures. In short, the force would be NATO supported. So it is time we lowered the temperature and raised the tone of the debate.
312
One way of doing that is to place the current developments in context. In 1992, the Maastricht treaty established the present framework of the European Union and the so-called second pillar of a common foreign and security policy. It said that member states
shall define and implement a common foreign and security policy.
It went on to specify that that
shall include all questions related to the security of the Union, including the eventual framing of a common defence policy, which might in time lead to a common defence.
That policy was signed up to by the previous Conservative Government: it was signed up to by the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) as well as by the current Leader of the Opposition.
Those who look for consistency in their politicians might assume that the Leader of the Opposition would still support a policy he signed up to as an ambitious Minister in government. At least it can be said of the shadow defence spokesman, the hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith), that he has consistently opposed Maastricht and consistently opposed the European Union. Sadly, his Euro-sceptic opposition is now leading the Conservative Party, with its leader jumping on the anti-European bandwagon.
The Leader of the Opposition should not try to hide behind NATO. It was NATO at Berlin in 1996 that offered to make its assets available for European operations, and it was NATO at the Washington summit last year that offered its support for the European defence initiative.
The policy that we are discussing today has not suddenly appeared. In fact, what we are doing is a long way short of the aspirations that the last Government signed up to and agreed. I apologise for this short history lesson, Mr. Speaker, but it is important to be clear that the aim that I set out at the beginning—the improvement of European capabilities—is not only an aim that all parties have shared, but an aim that has already been pursued over several years.
If it is necessary for Europeans to do more, why do they not simply take action within NATO? The answer of course is that we do take action within NATO. The fundamental structures of co-operation are there in planning, training, and command and control arrangements. What we are doing through the European Union will complement that action.
There are three main reasons for taking this action. First, there is a clear imbalance in capabilities between the Europeans and the United States, and that has grown over the past decade. Kosovo was a wake-up call. Both the United States and NATO strongly support increased efforts by Europe to respond to that challenge.
Not a single senior figure in the US Administration is opposed to the proposals. Madeline Albright described Monday's conference in Brussels as
a strongly positive development we wholly support.
At the recent NATO conference in Birmingham, Bill Cohen, the US Defence Secretary said:
Let me be clear on the American position—we agree with this goal, not grudgingly, not with resignation but with wholehearted conviction.
The effort now being put into developing better European capabilities—an effort led by Britain—is beginning to have an effect. For years, defence budgets throughout

313
Europe have been falling. Next year, according to figures given to NATO by its member nations, defence spending will rise in real terms in 11 of the 16 European states of NATO. The restructuring of armed forces to make them better equipped to face today's challenges is taking place in a number of European Union countries.
Secondly, the European Union is already actively involved in crises—through economic sanctions, diplomatic measures and humanitarian aid—but it has lacked clout. In security matters, especially in a real crisis, political weight reflects military weight. The EU has lacked a practical method for mobilising a military response.
The third reason is that additional political will and momentum for Europe to improve its capabilities is best generated through NATO and through the European Union. The multi-dimensional nature of security issues demands a co-ordinated political response. For that, frankly, we would be failing if we did not make full use of the mechanisms offered by the European Union.
The capability commitments conference earlier this week is neither something to fear nor something to scaremonger about. On the contrary, we as a nation should be delighted to see our European partners making a serious commitment to improving their capability to be able to respond to crisis management situations. It strengthens the military capability and resolve of the European Union, and strengthens the capability within the NATO alliance.
This is a statement of requirement—a goal, a level of ambition. It is a means of galvanising action. That is why it is called the headline goal. It is not a European army. It is not even a standing rapid reaction force. Nor is it confined to the European Union. On Tuesday, we heard from non-EU NATO nations and from the 15 EU aspirants. They, too, support the goal. They, too, have offered forces towards it, yet, as we have seen, the Opposition would pull the United Kingdom out of that process. They would have us isolated not only among 15 EU member states, but among 15 further non-EU European states.
Since Helsinki, military experts both from EU countries and from NATO have developed a detailed statement of requirement for the pool of forces and capabilities needed to cover the Petersberg tasks—peacekeeping, peace support and peace enforcement. On Monday, countries nominated elements of their national forces which they believed could contribute to that requirement. The process of identifying those forces is, in principle. no different from the process of declaring forces to NATO, or, indeed, to the United Nations. We need the ability to assemble the right sort of force quickly for a range of possible operations.
The key difference about the current initiative is that capabilities are being identified against a specific goal. The countries involved are demonstrating their determination to follow through on the areas of shortfall and deficiency which that process will highlight, so it is a step in a process, not the end of a road. We are perfectly well aware that there are many detailed issues to be followed up both in the European Union and in NATO.
314
Like others, the United Kingdom has identified a pool of forces and capabilities as its contribution towards the achievement of the headline goal. Those forces provide for a balance across the full range of Petersberg tasks, including the most demanding ones. In the maximum scale operation envisaged at Helsinki—a corps level deployment of up to 60,000 ground troops—the UK land component would be about 12,000 strong. Maritime and air deployments of up to 18 warships and 72 combat aircraft would be made in addition. I set all that out in more detail in my response to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Mr. Reed) on Monday.
Let me be clear about what the initiative is and what it is not. It is a planning process to ensure a more effective defence effort by European forces. It is a mechanism to improve European contributions to NATO and to ensure that European nations can in future play a more effective part in alliance operations. It will encourage more efficient and targeted defence spending by our European friends, and it will ensure that, when NATO is not engaged, the European Union can act effectively in a wide range of peace support operations, if and when its member nations want it to.
It is not a European army, or even a standing rapid reaction force. It is not an agreement to give up or to reduce Britain's sovereign control over British forces, and it is not a commitment to undertake operations that we would not previously have wished to take part in. It is not, therefore, a new burden on our armed forces. Those who have said that either do not understand what is happening, or deliberately seek to mislead for reasons of political opportunism.
The success of our armed forces in co-operating with our partners and allies deserves better. The Opposition should be ashamed of themselves for trying to use our armed forces to further their anti-European obsessions.
Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: What we should have been given today was a reasoned outline of the arguments in favour of the complete nonsense created by the Government. What the Secretary of State gave us—and it demeans his office—was a political rant in support of a Prime Minister in retreat over a policy U-turn that he made two years ago.
The reality is that the Secretary of State at no point bothered to answer the key question that he has failed to answer for the last year and a half, during which it was asked endlessly. What is this all for? The right hon. Gentleman says that it is for low-level peacekeeping tasks, as envisaged by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Portillo) at Petersberg. But what do the others say? The French do not see it like that at all. Alain Richard says:
We could increase the strength of the deployable forces. The land component should allow us to deal with two simultaneous crises, including a high intensity one with a long term requirement for forces. The ability of the sea and airlift components to project forces and carry out deep strikes would be significantly increased. Here we could envisage an army corps supplemented by 6 to 7 brigades and 600 to 700 aircraft including 400 to 450 combat aircraft.
So that is to aid the civil power—a Petersberg task, just to help the police to get on with their operations in a difficult area? I think not.
Perhaps we should now consider what was said just last weekend in a briefing to German newspapers. It is not what the Government choose to say here. Die Welt,

315
for instance, featured a headline stating: "The EU Army prepares itself for crises in Asia and Africa." The paper said:
The European Union plans to inform the world of a new Super-Army for heavily armed Military deployments in a radius of 4,000 km from Brussels. That will include large parts of Africa, the Middle East and the Caucasus.
That, in essence, is what those newspapers are being told.
The reality is that the Government are in denial. They have been in denial since the beginning of the process, because they did not start it for the purposes for which they now say that they started it. Why, following the creation of an organisation that apparently supports the Petersberg tasks, is it necessary to have available 100,000 soldiers on standby, 400 aircraft and 100 combat ships to back it up?
Furthermore, as the right hon. Gentleman should know—he may not have discovered it yet; if so, he should do his homework a bit better—if a soldier is deployed in the field he must be backed up, which would require another two for every one deployed. So we are now talking about 200,000 troops in deployment, and we are confronted with a completely different argument.
There is another point with which the right hon. Gentleman did not deal—a point that is not for the Petersberg tasks. Why does the right hon. Gentleman need a structure that is completely separate from NATO, and mirrors NATO? It includes a European military committee, a political committee, a security committee, European military staff, European intelligence and logistics support, and a headline goal that competes with that of NATO.
The reality is this. What the Secretary of State did not say is that the ambitions and proposals for this operation are far grander than he would want to let on.
There is another point about which the right hon. Gentleman did not say much. What about the European nations which are not members of EU, but which have been strong and firm members of NATO? This is not just about Europe; it is about the EU. Here we have nations such as Norway, the Czech republic, Poland, Hungary and Turkey, all in support. Yesterday, panicking about the idea that they were so far out of the proposal, the Government tossed them a scrap. They said, in effect, "You can come in if you want—when we ask you: when we call you. You will not be in from the word go, you are not members of the EU, and you cannot be involved in the planning process, so you will come in when we want." That is the key. That is why the Turkish ambassador said today "Frankly, this does not work at all."
So, we ask ourselves what the policy is all about. It is simply about a Government who dare not speak of their great love—their love to join the euro—which was rebuffed in 1998. Back in 1997, when the Government were considering the problem and the Prime Minister still thought that he would be able to join the euro, the Prime Minister said:
getting Europe 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.
That was the Government's position in 1997-98.
The change came in December 1998, when the Prime Minister realised that the game was up for his entry to the euro and that he needed to show his friends and allies in Europe that he was a good European. He offered them the proposed arrangement, regardless of its impact.
316
When the Prime Minister wants to know what other European countries think about the policy, he should perhaps remember why they are so keen about it. Joschka Fischer said:
it means an important step for the development of the European security and defence identity, another pillar of the process of European unification.
Mr. Jospin said:
By bringing its armed forces closer together and through its continuing commitment to peace and respect for international law, Europe must be able to complete that process.
Over there, they know what this is all about, and they say it every single day: over here, we have a Government who are in denial. The previous Government vetoed such an arrangement. The previous Government knew that the Petersberg tasks did not require a European Union organisation that would be a mirror image of NATO, discriminate against the east Europeans, dilute the forces available to NATO and duplicate NATO's organisation. The previous Government knew that, and the previous Prime Minister knew that. When he first started, even the current Prime Minister knew it.
Like everything else, however, we cannot trust this Prime Minister or this Government. When the opportunity comes, they will do a U-turn and change their mind as it suits them. That is the truth of this Government.
Mr. Hoon: Unfortunately, it is extremely difficult to take the shadow Defence Secretary seriously on any matter that has the word Europe or European at the beginning. Sitting behind him are any number of right. hon. and hon. Members who consistently supported the then Government's line on Maastricht. When we were in opposition, Labour Members watched the current shadow Defence Secretary split his own party on Maastricht by consistently voting against his own Government, over and over again.
As I said in my statement, the hon. Gentleman has the merit of consistency: he consistently opposed Maastricht and all that it contained. That is not true of the Leader of the Opposition, who supported it at the time. Now, in opposition, for reasons of political opportunism, the Leader of the Opposition has chosen to change his view on common European defence. That gives the House, and indeed the country, a real insight into the current state of the Conservative party—which consistently opposes anything European. It also consistently turns any argument to that direction.
I am accused of not doing my homework by someone who talks about having 100,000 ground troops on standby—there is no reference to that. The reality is that we have committed to achieving a capability that could, if necessary, deploy rapidly. That is the whole point of the process—[Interruption.]
The shadow Defence Secretary scoffs. He is scoffing at the lessons learned from Kosovo—at documents published for and debated in the House—where we could not deploy rapidly in the crisis and were heavily dependent on the United States. Why should we not be able to deploy our own European forces together?
The shadow Defence Secretary also talks about 200,000 troops being on standby as a back-up. He should know full well that, when we rotate troops to a crisis, we have those troops available. Those troops are available to go to Kosovo. The reality is that 80 per cent. of the forces

317
currently in Kosovo are of European origin. The reality is that, when we had the time to deploy, we were able to achieve that. What we were not able to do was to get those forces into a theatre quickly.
As for the 15 non-EU member states, they were present at the meeting; they were there on Tuesday. They offered their own forces as a contribution to the headline goal. So not only are the Conservatives absolutely determined to be isolated in the European Union, they are also determined to be isolated among 30 states that are prepared to participate in the process. The shadow Defence Secretary really gave the game away when he talked about people who are doing things for the United Kingdom as being "over there". That is his and his party's perception of Europe—Brussels acting against the Conservative party, against the narrow isolationist position of those who, in opposition, cannot see the benefits of European co-operation and are acting totally inconsistently with the actions of the previous Government, whom many of them supported at the time.
Mr. Bruce George: When the Opposition spokesman asked what this was all about, why did my right hon. Friend not let the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, who is a trained shrink, tell him that it is more about paranoia, xenophobia and election fever than rationality?
Mr. Hoon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who puts the case very well.
Mr. Menzies Campbell: May I welcome the statement and suggest to the Defence Secretary that he might take the opportunity, politely but firmly, to remind the cold war warriors—military and political—however distinguished, that Europe's defence needs today are rather different from our requirements in the days of the cold war and the Berlin wall? Is it not realistic in the light of recent experience, in particular the terms in which the presidential election was conducted in the United States, to assume that we cannot expect the United States to be willing in all circumstances to come to the assistance of Europe in conflicts such as Kosovo and Bosnia and that Europe must have the capacity to deal with such matters?
I welcome the right hon. Gentleman's assurance that there will be total transparency between NATO and the European Union in any European operation, but may I seek a further assurance? Will he use his every endeavour to ensure that the United Kingdom and all others who have pledged forces on paper during the past two or three days meet those commitments in reality?
Mr. Hoon: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. His implied criticism of the Conservative Opposition would have further force if it were not for the fact that, in government, they set in train the process of improving European defence capability, not simply in an EU context, but in the context of NATO and the EU through amendments to the Maastricht treaty to which they signed up. Former Conservative Ministers, now sitting on the Opposition Benches, agreed to that in the context of the Maastricht treaty.
318
What is important about the work in which we are engaged is the review mechanism. We need to ensure that those who offered forces offer forces of the right kind and the right quality that are capable of rapid deployment. That is a significant step forward in the operation of multinational organisations. In the past, we have not had an effective checking mechanism that has worked as we would have liked, but we are going to get that out of this process.
Mr. John Major: Is the Secretary of State aware that on many strategic issues since the last election I have either supported the Government or remained silent, conscious of their mandate? I have always favoured European co-operation on defence, as did the last Government, but only and exclusively as the European arm of the NATO alliance. The present proposals are not the same as that; they are totally different and wholly mistaken. Can the Secretary of State not understand some of the dangers? Can he not understand that what is proposed has no military logic? It adds not one iota of additional capacity. It offers no secure chain of command and, in my judgment, it will undermine NATO. The danger is that it may weaken the United States' traditional commitment to Europe. The Americans may well say to themselves, "Why should we ever contribute troops in future to a European regional conflict when Europe boasts an army of 60,000 men?"
Equally dangerously, the Secretary of State might reflect that, over time, what is proposed may even begin to erode our security arrangements with the United States which the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and the Defence Secretary will know about, which have worked immeasurably to the advantage of the United Kingdom.
The fact is that this is a political proposal, and an unwise one. Those of us in the previous Government would not have made it. The Secretary of State and the Government know that. The right hon. Gentleman has tried to hide behind a grotesque distortion of our policy, which is not what I would have expected from him.
The proposal comes from the Prime Minister. Where is he? He should have been here. The Prime Minister has blundered into a misconceived political proposal that should never have been made. It is profoundly not in our national interest, and should be dropped without delay—even if to do so might embarrass the Prime Minister.
Mr. Hoon: I am sorry to hear the right hon. Gentleman speak in those terms. When I first arrived in the House, I watched him—week in, week out, and month in, month out—struggle with the sort of people who now sit on the Tory Front Bench. They consistently opposed the right hon. Gentleman's policy on Europe.
We are talking about the Conservative party's obsessions with Europe. The right hon. Gentleman struggled manfully, week in and week out, with the very people who now speak for his party on Europe. I am sorry that he should argue that the policy on European defence for which he signed up involved only a European arm of NATO, as that is not what the Maastricht treaty says. He considered that treaty carefully, and I recall with some admiration how he took the House through its details.
Article J4 of the Maastricht treaty makes no reference to NATO and its European arm. It talks about the common foreign and security policy of the European

319
Union, and about the eventual framing of a common defence policy that might, in time, lead to common defence. The right hon. Member for Huntingdon signed up to that treaty, which contains no reference to NATO.
The right hon. Gentleman made a second point about the headline goal, the purpose of which is to achieve extra military capability. The House has debated on a number of occasions the deficiencies of the Kosovo campaign. The key deficiency was that we were not able to get European forces into that theatre sufficiently quickly. The headline goal is all about improving that deficiency, and thereby improving European military capability.
Thirdly, as I said in my statement, the United States Administration, at every level, have consistently supported the proposals, and have said so. I am sorry that the former Prime Minister should wish to avoid the fact that every senior figure in the US supports what we are doing.
Mr. Kevin McNamara: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement. The Government are taking a constructive and wise course that represents the only way for European countries to co-operate properly to overcome some of the problems encountered in the Balkans and the occasional reluctance of the United States Government to intervene.
I have two questions for my right hon. Friend. First, the new structure will absorb many of the institutions and defence structures of the Western European Union. What will happen to the WEU's remaining obligations under the Brussels treaty?
Secondly, the new structure lacks provision for adequate international parliamentary scrutiny. The European Parliament cannot perform that scrutiny as not all the countries supplying troops will be EU members. However, national Parliaments will not be able to scrutinise matters properly either. How does my right hon. Friend propose to replace the Parliamentary Assembly of the WEU?
Several hon. Members rose
Mr. Speaker: Order. I appeal to hon. Members to be brief. I made that request at Prime Minister's questions, and this statement is no different.
Mr. Hoon: I thank my hon. Friend for his carefully thought out observations, but I disagree with him in one particular. National Parliaments will still have a significant role in assessing their Governments' contributions to any European-type operations. As I made clear, it will be for a British Prime Minister to decide whether British forces should be committed to a particular operation, even if that operation were to be led by the European Union. Quite rightly, therefore, the matter will still be one for debate in Parliament.
As for the Parliamentary Assembly and parliamentary scrutiny at the European level, those matters are for the parliamentarians themselves. The Government have made it quite clear that we would welcome suggestions on how such European scrutiny could be continued.
Mr. Tom King: The Secretary of State has chosen an unusual way to try to lower the temperature on this issue. The extremely party political way in which he introduced the proposals has not been at all helpful.
320
Competing structures will be set up—whatever the apparent safeguards—and that is precisely why we did not agree in the past; my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) is right. The matter is even more grave at a time of serious overstretch in our forces—competing structures would be extremely damaging.
The Secretary of State cites the present American Administration. Has he noticed that one gentleman—Mr. Cheney—who knows as much about defence and the value of NATO as anybody and who may well be the next Vice—President, has expressed his serious concern about the proposal as a threat to NATO?
Mr. Hoon: The right hon. Gentleman uses the word "overstretch". I am disappointed to hear the word in this context, because I assume that he would not use it in the context of a commitment of forces to NATO or indeed to the United Nations—[Interruption.] I am being barracked from Conservative Front—Bench Members, who are shouting "over and above". The reality is that we have one set of forces whom we use once. As I made clear, it will thus always be the case that the British Prime Minister of the day will take a decision in the light of prevailing circumstances—that must include the demands on our armed forces at the time—as to whether we will participate in a particular operation. That is no different from the situation that would arise in relation to a NATO operation or if we were asked for support for a UN-led operation. The word "overstretch" has no relevance in this issue, because we do not have standing forces, waiting for a so-called Petersberg operation. Instead, we have a commitment that we can make them available, if we are able to do so at the time.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: What have the Government in Prague, whose forces have played such a valuable role in Kosovo, said about the proposals?
Mr. Hoon: A number of EU-aspirant countries were present at the meeting on Tuesday, which I have mentioned. They have indicated their willingness to participate and the type of forces that they would make available, so they are strongly in support of the initiative.
Sir Archie Hamilton: Does the Secretary of State agree that there is a growing isolationist movement in the USA? Does he think that these initiatives will encourage or discourage those isolationists?
Mr. Hoon: The right hon. Gentleman knows well that, over a long period, there have been debates in the United States as to the extent to which they should or should not be engaged in providing European security. My strong view is that, unless European nations are willing to take more responsibility for their own security—to strengthen the European pillar of NATO—isolationist tendencies in the US would be fuelled. A strong argument in the US is that the US electorate should not fund European security. I can understand that, so it is right that European nations should try to do better and try to do more. That is precisely what this initiative is about.
Mr. Tony Worthington: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his statement. I realise that the initiative relates mainly to defence, but it would also help in humanitarian responses to disasters.

321
In Mozambique, the British response was wonderful—magnificent; the European response was patchy and the NATO response was nil. At one stage, we were held up by the non-availability of an Antonov plane to transport helicopters to Mozambique. Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in future, when lives are being lost and when only military capacity can deliver the means to save them, such an initiative can provide a response for the good?
Mr. Hoon: The Petersberg tasks include humanitarian assistance. Clearly, one of the lessons that successive Governments have realised that they needed to learn was about the provision of heavylift capacity, by both air and sea. That is precisely why the Labour Government—not a previous Government—have invested so much money in providing that capacity by air and sea. It will fulfil the needs described by my hon. Friend.
Sir Peter Tapsell: Will the Secretary of State accept that, although I was one of those Members who voted against almost every clause of the Maastricht treaty, I have never been opposed to close military co-operation with our European friends within NATO? May I remind him that my first political master, Anthony Eden, formed the view as early as 1937, that a second world war was unavoidable unless the United States could be heavily involved in European affairs, and that it was because Neville Chamberlain, out of hand, repudiated a secret telegram from President Roosevelt offering to intervene that Eden resigned as Foreign Secretary?
The Secretary of State knows perfectly well, does he not, that the French have long wanted to weaken European co-operation with the United States in NATO, and that this whole project is a French design to weaken Anglo-American NATO co-operation?
Mr. Hoon: I do not accept that for a moment. In answer to a number of questions that have arisen, I am absolutely convinced that, by strengthening the European pillar of NATO, we are strengthening NATO.
Ms Rachel Squire: Does my right hon. Friend agree that of all the things we could do, the one that is most likely to weaken the American commitment to Europe and encourage isolationism is to listen to the anti-Europe isolationist rantings of the Conservative party, and to continue to allow the European nations to sit back and expect America to take the greatest burden of NATO operations and peacekeeping tasks?
Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is about time that we had some answers from the Conservatives as to why they failed to strengthen European defence capability within NATO during their 18 years in office?
Mr. Hoon: My hon. Friend makes several telling points. As I spent the last two and a half days in Brussels and in Germany, I must tell the Conservatives that their political friends and allies on the continent are beginning to despair of the attitudes that they are now striking. Those attitudes may well simply be fuelled by the prospect of a general election—they may be no more than cheap political opportunism—but they are completely inconsistent with the position that they took in
322
government. The test that must be applied to them is: can they remain consistent while in government and when moving to opposition? In reality, they are completely failing in that.
Mr. Nicholas Soames: The right hon. Gentleman's suggestion that for the Opposition to question these proposals is in some way anti-European is grotesque, and is deeply resented by the Opposition.
Everyone agrees that the Europeans need to do more for defence, a policy pursued with great vigour by my right hon. Friends the Members for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) and for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Portillo) when he was Secretary of State for Defence, but always under the umbrella of NATO. Why, then, is there the need, other than to play a great political card, to undertake these proposals outside the NATO umbrella, thus duplicating the most effective peacetime military alliance of all time? In view of the right hon. Gentleman's quotation of Secretary Cohen, may I refer him to what Mr. Cohen said at Birmingham on 10 October this year? He said that it would be highly ineffective, seriously wasteful of resources and contradictory to the basic principles of the 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. Will the right hon. Gentleman deal with that?
Mr. Hoon: But that is absolutely right. We are not relying on autonomous force-planning structures. We have made it absolutely clear—and I have made it absolutely clear in my statement—that there will be complete transparency. There will be no duplication of those planning resources. That has been agreed by all those who signed up to this process. A number of right hon. and hon. Members are shaking their heads. It is in the agreement. It has been decided. It is no good for the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) to quote the United States Secretary of Defence out of context as a way of seeking to validate his own prejudices.
I pay tribute to the right hon. Members for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) and for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Portillo) for the work that they did in government to promote European defence. I said that they took the process ahead and moved it along—we are simply taking it further. However, it is not true to say that their work was carried out solely in a NATO context. The Maastricht treaty was not a NATO treaty; it was a treaty of the European Union.
Mr. Mike Gapes: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the biggest threat to the future of NATO comes not from Europe, but from the political platform of the Republican party in the United States and the desire of many people there to reduce its military involvement in Europe? Is it therefore not prudent for us to make preparations so that, if we face difficulties in future, we, as Europeans, can act on our continent to increase and enhance our security and to deal with crises as they arise?
Mr. Hoon: In answer to an earlier question, I made it clear that there has been a considerable debate over a long period in the United States as to the extent to which it should be committed to defending European security. There are those in the United States who argue that it should not spend a single cent of US taxpayers' dollars

323
on defending Europe. I am delighted that that view will not prevail. However, to resist that argument, it is important that European nations do more. That is precisely what the proposal is about.
Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: The Secretary of State would be very wise not to parrot the phrase that those who are opposed to the policy that he has announced are isolationist or xenophobic. I strongly resent such an attack. In fact, it only underlines his own experience in the matter—he seems more and more to parrot the phrases of the Prime Minister.
Does the Secretary of State understand that many of us are totally opposed to the concept—which is enshrined in the documents—that we should find a European defence community well embedded as a European enterprise that would ultimately be responsible, as it develops, to a European Parliament? If the Secretary of State thinks that those are the views of europhobes, let me quote the views of the chairman of the foreign relations committee of the Czech Parliament and of a Polish member of the national defence committee of the Polish Parliament. They say that it
appears more and more that this EU defence project has less to do with rebalancing capabilities and more to do with political separation.
I have just attended a conference in Berlin of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, and I know that that view is echoed by many people in eastern and western Europe.
Mr. Hoon: Conservative Members have quoted different people from the United States in the same way as the hon. Gentleman has quoted figures from European countries. I entirely accept that some people in all countries will resist the proposals and will say that they are not sensible. However, the hon. Gentleman cannot cite a single figure from the Governments in any of the 30 states represented around the table on Tuesday, the United States or Canada who is opposed to what we are trying to achieve—strengthening the European pillar of NATO by strengthening NATO itself.
Mr. Douglas Hogg: Although I accept the need for an enhanced European defence capacity, will the Secretary of State answer the question that has been pressed on him by many right hon. and hon. Members? Why cannot that enhanced capacity be achieved within the framework of NATO? He has not dealt with that question fully or properly, so will he please do so now?
Mr. Hoon: I made it clear in my statement that the proposals can and will be implemented in the framework of NATO and in support for the common security policy of the European Union. However, they will not involve any duplication of forces or planning. That is why we have made clear the need for full transparency between the European Union's processes and those of NATO. If we are to deploy the single forces that we have available to those bodies, there must be absolute consistency between the two approaches. That is clear. It is what I said in my statement, so it should not be a surprise to the right hon. and learned Gentleman.
Mr. William Cash: If there are operations in which NATO as a whole is not engaged and we are,
324
therefore, operating under the Feira summit arrangements with the European Union acting in an autonomous fashion in an international crisis, the policies that are pursued will be inconsistent, by definition, with the fact that NATO as a whole is not engaged and will mean the United States takes a different view. In such a case, what arrangements will be put in place to deal with questions of military intelligence of the kind that were raised during the Falklands war?
Mr. Hoon: The phrase, "NATO as a whole is not engaged", has been included to deal with the situation described by the hon. Gentleman. It would allow access to NATO assets and capabilities by an autonomous European Union force when NATO as a whole is not engaged. That was agreed at Washington by the NATO nations.
Mr. Michael Howard: The Secretary of State has acknowledged that greater European defence co-operation, which is entirely welcome, could take place within NATO. Does he accept that that was the Government's policy until the 1998 St. Malo agreement? Why was that policy changed?
Mr. Hoon: That policy has not changed. I made it clear in my statement that this agreement is a development of not only this Government's policy but the previous Government's policy, which he supported.
Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: I am sure that we can all agree on one thing: if forces—men and material—are committed on operations to the European force, they are not available to NATO, the UN or to act in our national interests. The Secretary of State failed to explain in his long statement why it is in our national interest to fritter away already overstretched forces.
Mr. Hoon: We are not doing that. Any international deployment of British forces would have to be reviewed carefully if a direct threat to Britain's vital national interest arose. That would be the case for deployment in the context of NATO or the UN. If there were a threat to the United Kingdom, we would withdraw those forces where necessary. That is the position already. We are not changing it at all.
Mr. Julian Brazier: Will the Secretary of State confirm that, when we finally borrow the four wide-bodied jets from the Americans, they will be the only ones this side of the pond, so the force can go nowhere without American support?
Mr. Hoon: The hon. Gentleman knows—at least, I thought he knew, because he has served on the Defence Committee—that a number of heavylift assets are available to us. We will be augmenting those by the lease of C-17s and the construction of the A400M. Frankly, he could have more vigorously criticised his Government for failing to take those decisions, certainly during the five years when he was a Member of the House under that Government. The reality is that we have taken those decisions and those assets will be increasingly available to us.
Mr. John Maples: The tone of the Secretary of State's statement and his response to

325
questions has been a disgrace. If people needed proof that this agreement was all about European politics and nothing to do with defence, they have had it this afternoon.
When the policy U-turn was announced two years ago, Madeleine Albright set three tests: that there should be no duplication of expensive military assets, no discrimination against non-European Union members of NATO and no risk of decoupling the United States from the defence of Europe. The Government have, I believe, breached all three, and the development risks seriously undermining NATO.
Mr. Hoon: The hon. Gentleman would have heard my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister quote the United States Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright, in response to Monday's meeting. I have also quoted her, and she was eminently satisfied. All three tests were satisfied; all three tests were achieved. That is why it is important that Britain continues to lead the way on European defence.
Dr. Julian Lewis: Does the Secretary of State accept that many Conservative Members have been fighting for 20 years and more to support NATO, irrespective of their views on the European Union? Does he also accept that it is a not normal for a Government continually to push the Chief of the Defence Staff to endorse their political positions? As they have chosen to do so, will the Secretary of State comment on what the Chief of the Defence Staff said a few days ago in answer to a question from a Member of Parliament who asked why anything that could be done outside the NATO structure could not be done within its structure?
I suppose it could have been done within the NATO framework and in some ways it would have been easier.
But, he went on:
It was decided by the EU governments that this was the way it would be done.
What will be achieved outside the NATO structure that could not have been achieved within it?
Mr. Hoon: Let me deal first with the hon. Gentleman's point about the Chief of the Defence Staff. I should make it absolutely clear that nobody pushes the Chief of the Defence Staff forward—absolutely no one. I have far too much respect for a man whom the Conservative party appointed when in government ever to push him forward to deal with any issue. He chooses to comment when he chooses to comment. Certainly—perhaps this is the hon. Gentleman's difficulty—he has consistently supported the idea of more effective European co-operation. He —ecognises that that is good for the armed forces and their ability to participate in crisis missions.
Mr. David Curry: As the British armed forces appear to be out of date and under repair or, in the case of their equipment, late in delivery, and their men, women and machines are under immense stress, what specific commitments have been given by continental Governments on their forces' equipment, so that if their forces are used they can be well equipped with compatible equipment? Will he cite an example of
326
where the force might act in the event of American disapproval? If the force did not have such approval, would it be capable of acting?
Mr. Hoon: I assume that the first part of the right hon. Gentleman's comments referred to the recent Public Accounts Committee report. If he studies that carefully, he will find that nearly every aspect of criticism relates to projects begun under the previous Conservative Government. We are trying to resolve the delays that are inherent in the process of procurement from that time. Indeed, the PAC report indicates that there is now progress in that respect and, indeed, congratulates the Government on the steps that they are taking.
On the capability question, I said in response to a previous question that one change that we have negotiated in the present European process is a much more effective mechanism for reviewing contributions from all participants, to ensure that they are genuinely rapidly deployable forces and have the qualities that are required to participate in such a force. So, there is a step change in improvement in the way in which we can take forward the capability.
Mr. Peter Brooke: Why was the language of the statement so defensive? Why did the statement seem to have been composed on the back of an envelope? Why is the red line behind the Secretary of State so very thin?
Mr. Hoon: If the language was defensive—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Offensive."] I apologise if I misheard the right hon. Gentleman. I certainly did not intend the language to be offensive to him. He has always approached these matters extremely courteously. We are seeking to address the real issues, but there are those on his Front Bench who would mislead the public by trying to present a completely misrepresented account of what we are trying to negotiate. I apologise to the right hon. Gentleman if he was offended by the tone of my remarks, but I do not necessarily extend that to the Conservative Front-Bench team.
Mr. Crispin Blunt: The Secretary of State knows that the Governments of the United States and Canada have been as anxious as everyone else to achieve greater co-operation and European contribution to defence in NATO. He knows that we have been negotiating for years, trying to use NATO's capabilities and planning process to enable Europeans to make such a contribution themselves. That could have been achieved in NATO. Who decided that it could not? Was it the Americans and the Canadians or our European partners?
Mr. Hoon: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman did not listen to my statement. I made it clear that the process is being taken forward in both NATO—NATO recognises the importance of rapidly deployable forces—and the EU. A consistent planning process will be available to both in order to achieve our objective: no duplication of assets and resources.
Mr. John Wilkinson: Why should neutral Ireland, Austria, Sweden and Finland be more closely involved with the decision making on whether to use or deploy the force than NATO Iceland,

327
Norway, Turkey, Czechoslovakia, Hungary and Poland? Is not the proposal deeply divisive for European security and thoroughly retrograde? Will the right hon. Gentleman encourage the neutrals to sign up to the mutual security provisions of the Brussels treaty?
Mr. Hoon: Unfortunately for the hon. Gentleman's observation, representatives of all the countries that he mentioned sat around a table on Tuesday offering their forces as part of the process. Indeed, Turkey has made a substantial contribution and indicated how vigorously it wished to participate. I am afraid that the premise of the hon. Gentleman's argument simply does not work. With regard to the neutral states, they have many of the forces that are useful for the range of Petersberg tasks and precisely the kind of humanitarian work envisaged at Petersberg. The hon. Gentleman is wrong on both counts.
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: The Secretary of State was being utterly candid when he said that the initiative was only one step in the process on the road ahead. Can he say how long he thinks it will be before we move from national troops committed to a European corps, to a European army with troops regardless of their nationality?
Mr. Hoon: I have made it clear that we are not discussing a European army. The process was begun by the previous Conservative Administration and carried on by the Government.

Honours and Decorations
4.31 pm
Mr. Fraser Kemp: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision about the award of certain honours and decorations; and for connected purposes.
I begin by clarifying two points. First, the Bill will not affect military honours currently awarded for gallantry. Secondly, it will not alter the current arrangements for another place.
The Bill will replace the arcane panoply of honours currently available, from knighthoods to baronetcies, from the Order of St. Patrick to the Thistle, the Star of India, the Order of the Indian Empire, and various others. Some of those are still technically in existence, but they have not been awarded in decades. One of them, incidentally, is available only to members of one religious faith in Britain. That is hardly a sign of a multi-faith nation or a society that cherishes many different faiths.
I shall concentrate on the 90 per cent. of honours that are awarded, usually twice yearly—the honours of the British empire, which are given in three categories. They often seem to be awarded on the grounds of a person's rank, occupation or status in society. Such an outdated system does no credit to a nation that has just entered a new millennium. Any nation, and Britain in particular, should strive to break down social divisions, not reinforce them by clinging to an honours system that is based on an empire which, whether we like it or not, ceased to exist several decades ago.
I have no problem with some form of formal recognition to celebrate and reward people who make society a better place, and who work unstintingly for others, often with no reward to themselves. I agree that those people should be recognised, but that recognition should be based purely on their contribution to society.
I pose a series of questions to the House with regard to the current honours system. How are we to quantify public service, or judge one person's contribution to society as more important than that of someone else? Why should we honour a first-rate diplomat and ambassador about whom many of us have not heard, rather than an exceptional nurse who has looked after people throughout a professional career?
Why should one grade of honour be awarded rather than another? How can we make a judgment about television presenters or celebrities, and whether they should receive an honour of one grade rather than another? The same applies to authors—ultimately, a literary judgment would have to be made, which I am not sure the honours unit, the Prime Minister or anyone else is qualified to make. How are such gradations to be made? We need to examine that closely.
Many people are often offended when an industrialist, for example, who might or might not have donated money to a political party, ends up with a much higher grade honour than tireless charity workers and many others who work so hard. Such judgments are arbitrary within the current system, make no sense and offend many people. The system is not enhanced by its gradations; indeed, they often bring the entire system into disrepute and confusion.
I want to see an across-the-board honour rather than honours that reflect the past. We are in the 21st century, and we should be moving on. We could look to other

329
Commonwealth nations, such as Canada, Australia and Jamaica, which have abolished the British honours system. Australia has replaced the various honours that were available with one simple Order of Australia. Whether someone worked in the outback as a postman for 40 years or was Prime Minister, he is proud to receive the Order of Australia. We could learn much from other Commonwealth countries that have adopted a different approach.
We should replace the present panoply of honours with an Order of the United Kingdom. That should be the way in which this country honours its worthiest members. I think that recipients would be proud to receive the honour. It would be awarded on the basis of what someone has done to make society a better place, irrespective of where he stands in the pecking order.
The Bill would enable the number of nominations received from the public to be increased. At present, less than 50 per cent. of the honours awarded bi-annually are the result of public nominations. We should ensure that the percentage increases. The rest of the nominations are made by a mixture of businesses, national organisations, Government Departments and the Prime Minister's office. We need radically to change the balance to ensure that nominations are made by many more people.
I accept that changes have been made, particularly in 1993. I welcome those changes, but we need to move a step further. As we enter the new millennium, I believe that the symbols of public recognition should be changed. Symbols are important because they often send out a message about the society in which we want to live. We should not tolerate systems that continue to reinforce divisions in society. I am reminded of what Barbara Castle said when she was Secretary of State for Transport.
The most outrageous feature about the Honours System was that it reflected the system of social stratification and snobbery in this country. One of my most embarrassing jobs as a Minister was to present
certain honours
to railwaymen and other members of the lower orders
who were not deemed important enough to go to the Palace for their investiture.
Changes have been made, as I have said, and in all sincerity I congratulate the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), who made some important steps forward. The medal to which Barbara Castle was referring was one that he abolished. As far as I can ascertain, he is the only Prime Minister of the previous century to abolish an honour. The steps that he took were in the right direction, but we must ensure that we move a step further and have an honours system that is more in common with the meritocratic democracy in which we live, rather than one that is linked to the past.
Before anyone accuses me of flying in the face of history, the reality is that 99 per cent. of the honours that are awarded every year are inventions that cover about a century. Some of them have a certain mediaeval flavour about them, but in reality they were created in Queen Victoria's reign and in the early part of the 19th century. Some honours date back a number of centuries, but 99 per cent. of what we do every year date from about a century ago. We should honour those members of society who have made that contribution. This is about the honours that we represent and our values in Britain today, not those of yesteryear.
330
I ask the House to support the measure, as it is time for a radical overhaul. The House has come a long way since it blew the gaff on Lloyd George, who famously sold knighthoods for £10,000, baronetcies for £40,000 and peerages for about £100,000. A lot has changed since then, but we need to make sure that we change the current system, which is indefensible. I therefore ask the House to support the measure.
4.40 pm
Mr. Eric Forth: I cannot make up my mind whether the hon. Member for Houghton and Washington, East (Mr. Kemp) is off-message or trailing for Tony. I shall seek to divide the House on the matter, so we shall soon find out whether the hon. Gentleman, who is always described in the media as being close to Tony, knows something that he is not telling us about or is seriously off-message and will not be close to Tony after today.
The proposal is as about as typical of new Labour as one can get. It is a mindless assault on tradition, our heritage and history, as well as a blundering and ill-considered attempt to sweep away things that are well understood, if not by the hon. Gentleman and his friends, at least by the vast majority of people in this country. Surely, the acid test of whether the current honours system is appropriate is the pleasure with which people accept honours. It is all very well for the hon. Gentleman to patronise people who happily accept various honours, but he seems to have given no thought to those recipients who, when they accept, are honoured—and say so—and make no secret of the fact that they are delighted. They reveal the great pleasure that they take in being recognised in many different ways.
We heard a lot of nonsense about a class-ridden society. Surely, the fact that our new Speaker hails, as I do, from a tenement in Glasgow tells us that our society has long since left behind the blind prejudices that obsess the hon. Gentleman and his friends, and has become genuinely open. Our beloved Deputy Prime Minister used to serve drinks on a cruise liner, but that was no barrier to him achieving one of the highest offices in the land, and we must all welcome that. However, along comes the hon. Gentleman with his narrow, obsessive ideology, determined to sweep away things that are loved, respected and honoured throughout the country, including our well-established honours system. He then blunders in with something called the Order of the United Kingdom.
For goodness' sake, what is the point of doing that apart from sheer mindless destruction, for which the Government have become rather too well known? [Interruption.] The Government are prepared to sweep away large parts of our constitution and well-understood elements of our electoral arrangements, and they want to introduce confusing, muddled and irrelevant things. I heard the clack of hon. Members surrounding the hon. Member for Houghton and Washington talking about equality.
Mr. Ronnie Campbell: Fairness.
Mr. Forth: Or fairness, as the hon. Gentleman says. I should have thought that any system that requires judgment by one person on another will either be accepted as fair or condemned as unfair, almost regardless of what it does.

331

I am pleased that the hon. Member for Houghton and Washington, East said that his proposal would not affect military awards.
Mr. Kemp: Gallantry awards.
Mr. Forth: The hon. Gentleman must accept that gallantry awards inevitably require one person to judge other people's achievements and contributions. Any system of recognition requires that. I have not noticed any reticence from the Government about using the honours system, whether to award peerages to contributors to the Labour party or to the endless succession of luvvies who stream through No. 10 and go out smiling, having been given some sort of award. The hon. Gentleman's own Government, through their actions over the past three and a half years, have demonstrated that they are very keen on the existing awards system. I do not particularly blame them for that or for following in Lloyd George's footsteps, if that is how they feel that they should conduct themselves. I do not blame them for the luvvies either, to whom they are welcome as far as I am concerned.
The truth is that the measure reveals much more about the hon. Gentleman and the Labour party today than it does about the honours system. The hon. Gentleman has a twisted and bitter approach to these matters which simply is not shared by the thousands of people who, every year, happily accept well-deserved honours and recognition through our existing honours system.
Had the hon. Gentleman given us many examples of people who had been offended or upset by the offer of an honour, I might have been a bit more impressed, but he has not. He has come at this from an ideological point of view. He has demonstrated that he and his party are all about the destruction of our institutions, heritage, traditions and history. We must have none of it and I call on my right hon. and hon. Friends to reject this ill-thought-out and bitter motion today.
Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 23 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business):—
The House divided: Ayes 153, Noes 58.

Division No. 350]

[4.45 pm

AYES

Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

Campbell-Savours, Dale

Ainger, Nick

Cann, Jamie

Allan, Richard

Cawsey, Ian

Ashton, Joe

Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

Atherton, Ms Candy

Chaytor, David

Baker, Norman

Chidgey, David

Ballard, Jackie

Clapham, Michael

Banks, Tony

Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

Barnes, Harry

Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

Beith, Rt Hon A J

Cohen, Harry

Bennett, Andrew F

Connarty, Michael

Bermingham, Gerald

Cotter, Brian

Best, Harold

Crausby, David

Blears, Ms Hazel

Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

Brake, Tom

Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

Brand, Dr Peter

Cummings, John

Breed, Colin

Dalyell, Tam

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

Burgon, Colin

Davidson, Ian

Burstow, Paul

Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

Butler, Mrs Christine

Dismore, Andrew

Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

332

Donohoe, Brian H

McWalter, Tony

Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

McWilliam, John

Efford, Clive

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Ennis, Jeff

Mallabar, Judy

Etherington, Bill

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Feam, Ronnie

Marshall-Andrews, Robert

Fitzpatrick, Jim

Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

Flynn, Paul

Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

Follett, Barbara

Mitchell, Austin

Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

Galloway, George

Mountford, Kali

Gapes, Mike

Mudie, George

George, Andrew (St Ives)

Naysmith, Dr Doug

Gibson, Dr Ian

Olner, Bill

Gidley, Sandra

Organ, Mrs Diana

Gilroy, Mrs Linda

Pollard, Kerry

Godman, Dr Norman A

Pound, Stephen

Godsiff, Roger

Prosser, Gwyn

Golding, Mrs Llin

Rendel, David

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Ruane, Chris

Hancock, Mike

Russell, Bob (Colchester)

Harris, Dr Evan

Sanders, Adrian

Healey, John

Sawford, Phill

Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

Shaw, Jonathan

Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

Sheerman, Barry

Hepburn, Stephen

Shipley, Ms Debra

Hinchliffe, David

Skinner, Dennis

Hope, Phil

Smith, Angela (Basildon)

Hopkins, Kelvin

Smith, John (Glamorgan)

Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

Smith, Liew (Blaenau Gwent)

Iddon, Dr Brian

Steinberg, Gerry

Illsley, Eric

Stevensopn, George

Jenkins, Brian

Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

Stunell, Andrew

Jones, Ms Jenny

Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

(Wolverh'ton SW)

Taylor, David (NW, Leics)

Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

Trickett, Jon

Kemp, Fraser

Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

Khabra, Piara S

Turner, Neil (Wigan)

Kilfoyle, Peter

Tyler, Paul

King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

Vis, Dr Rudi

Kumar, Dr Ashok

Webb, Steve

Lammy, David

Welsh, Andrew

Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

White, Brian

Lepper, David

Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

Livsey, Richard

Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

Winnick, David

Llwyd, Elfyn

Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

McCafferty, Ms Chris

Wright, Tony (Cannock)

McDonnell, John

Wyatt, Derek

McFall, John

McNamara, Kevin

Tellers for the Ayes:

MacShane, Denis

Mr. Ronnie Campbell and

Mactaggart, Fiona

Mr. Denis Murphy

NOES

Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

(Rushcliffe)

Beggs, Roy

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Bell, Martin (Talton)

Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

Bercow, John

Fox, Dr Liam

Blunt, Crispin

Gale, Roger

Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

Gill, Christopher

Brazier, Julian

Gray, James

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Green, Damian

Browning, Mrs Angela

Grieve, Dominic

Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

Harvey, Nick

Burns, Simon

Hawkins, Nick

Chapman, Sir Sydney

Hunter, Andrew

(Chipping Barnet)

Keetch, Paul

Clappison, James

Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles

Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

(Ross Skye & Inverness W)

Key, Robert

333

Laing, Mrs Eleanor

Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

Leigh, Edward

Swayne, Desmond

Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Loughton, Tim

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Luff, Peter

Tyrie, Andrew

MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

Waterson, Nigel

Maclean, Rt Hon David

Whitney, Sir Raymond

McLoughlin, Patrick

Whittingdale, John

Moss, Malcolm

Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

Oaten, Mark

Wilkinson, John

Öpik, Lembit

Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

Randall, John

Young, Rt Hon Sir George

Redwood, Rt Hon John

Robathan, Andrew

Tellers for the Noes:

Robertson, Laurence

Mr. Eric Forth and

St Aubyn, Nick

Mr. Douglas Hogg.

Question accordingly agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Fraser Kemp, Mr. Ronnie Campbell, Mr. Lawrie Quinn, Mr. Alan Keen, Mr. Stephen Hepburn, Mr. Peter Kilfoyle, Mr. Chris Ruane, Mr. David Winnick and Mr. Bob Russell.

Honours and Decorations
  HONOURS AND DECORATIONS
  Mr. Fraser Kemp accordingly presented a Bill to make provision about the award of certain honours and decorations; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Wednesday 29 November, and to be printed [Bill 186].
Orders of the Day

  Fur Farming (Prohibition) Bill
  Lords amendments considered.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): I draw the House's attention to the fact that privilege is involved in Lords amendments Nos. 1, 2 and 5. If the House agrees to any of these Lords amendments, I shall ensure that the appropriate entry is made in the Journal.

  Fur Farming (Prohibition) Bill
    Clause 5

      COMPENSATION FOR EXISTING BUSINESSES
      Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 3, line 16, after second ("of") insert ("income and non-income").
      4.58 pm
      The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Elliot Morley): I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendment No. 2, amendments (a) and (b) thereto, Lords amendments Nos. 3 and 4, Lords amendment No. 5 and amendments (a) and (b) thereto.
      Mr. Morley: These amendments relate to the compensation scheme for fur farmers who will be put out of business by the ban on keeping animals coley or primarily for slaughter for the value of their fur. In the House and in another place, concerns were raised about the form of the proposed compensation scheme. As I explained at the time, this is an enabling Bill, and it is therefore not appropriate for the full and exact details of the compensation scheme to be included.
      The intention is that Ministers will decide on the details of the compensation scheme after Royal Assent, when we have arranged for independent assessors to visit the fur farms to provide information on which a decision about the form of the scheme can be based. I made it clear, however, that the Government accept that fair compensation should be made available to fur farmers.
      When the Bill received its Third Reading in the House, clause 5 did not specify whether compensation would include loss of income. That has been a cause for concern both here and in another place. Furthermore, the report of the House of Lords Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation recommended that the Bill should specify whether compensation includes loss of income, on the basis that that had important European convention on human rights implications and should not be left to ministerial discretion.
      In the light of both those concerns and the Select Committee's report, the Government decided to table amendments in another place, committing Ministers to include loss of income in the compensation scheme. Thus clause 5(1) will now require the compensation scheme to cover both income and non-income losses incurred as a result of ceasing fur farming because of the enactment or the coming into force of the prohibition in clause 1.

      335
      Clause 5(2) will require the scheme to specify the descriptions of income and non-income losses in respect of which payments are to be made and the description of business to be compensated, although the scheme need not provide for all losses to be compensated. Clause 5(3) will provide that the scheme shall specify the basis of the valuation for determining losses; the amounts of the payments to be made, or the basis on which such amounts are to be calculated; and the procedure to be followed in respect of claims under the scheme.
      Concerns were raised in the House that the use of the word "may" in clause 5(2) could allow the Government to avoid including the matters set out in that subsection in the compensation scheme. I made it clear at the time that that was never our intention. We have therefore removed any doubt as to the Government's commitment by changing the word "may" to "shall" in clause 5(2).
      The full details of the scheme will be subject to a consultation exercise with the industry after Royal Assent and before the order introducing the compensation scheme is made. In another place, my noble Friend, the Minister of State, Baroness Hayman agreed that we would consider setting in motion before Royal Assent the steps needed to draw up a scheme. I should like to thank her for the way in which she dealt with the Bill and guided it through the other place. We have now set the wheels in motion and have written to all the fur farmers and the National Farmers Union, as their representative, seeking their agreement to independent consultants looking at their books. We are trying to speed the process as much as we can before Royal Assent. We await the NFU's response on behalf of fur farmers.
      I appreciate that this is a narrow debate, limited to the Lords amendments, but it would be remiss of me not to put on record my thanks to the many hon. Members and Members of the House of Lords who have supported the Bill. It has received enormous support from the public, who have backed it in writing. We should all record our special thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle), who promoted the original private Member's Bill that forms the basis of the Government Bill.
      Mr. Malcolm Moss: The debate is now drawing to a close on this rather contentious legislation. If one reads the reports of all the Bill's proceedings in both Houses, one does not find much support for it from the vast majority of Members who contributed to the debates. At all stages, compensation was the key issue. Given the weary resignation of fur farmers to the inevitability of the Bill reaching the statute book because of the Government's huge majority, the defence shifted from opposing the Bill in principle to achieving the best possible compensation deal for fur farmers.
      From what the Minister said, it seems that the Government are no further down the road of setting the parameters for the compensation calculation. I wonder why the Government have not used the time over the summer recess to work more closely with fur farmers, at least to set some basic parameters and headings on the compensation issue.
      If we were to ask the fur farmers whether, under these Lords amendments, they were any wiser about what they could realistically expect as compensation, their answer
      336
      would be an unequivocal no. They are no further forward with knowing what their businesses will be worth and how best to plan for their futures.
      Is not it true that the amendments were tabled only because the Government took fright at the recommendation of the Lords Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation that the question whether compensation should be included for loss of income, which has important human rights applications, should not be left to ministerial discretion. Thus income and non-income losses are now to be in the Bill, and the word "may" in line 20 is to be changed to "shall." I suppose that we should feel grateful to the Government for those hard-won concessions, but the definition of income losses and the amount of such losses are still unknown quantities.
      As was said in the other place, the Government are in uncharted waters, especially in respect of a farming enterprise such as fur farming. The only evidence from valuations in the European Union comes from Austria, where a fur farmer in one of its regions was closed down and paid the equivalent of £390 for each breeding female.
      The Government have not moved an inch from their estimate, which was published in the Bill's explanatory memorandum, of some £400,000 earmarked for asset losses and up to four times that figure—£1.6 million—if income losses are included. How does that square with the valuation of one of the fur farming businesses at £5 million worth of forced closure losses? On the basis of the Austrian valuation, the total compensation could be well over double that figure. Have the Government amended their figures on the possible outcome of total compensation? Has the Minister made any application to his departmental budget for additional resources to meet the likely increased costs, or will he take the money from the budget headings that are currently earmarked for our hard-pressed farmers and fishermen?
      In the other place, Baroness Hayman confirmed that ancillary costs associated with the closing down of fur farming business, such as valuation fees, redundancy payments, interest payments for delayed compensation, costs of clearing land and the taking down of buildings and any legal fees, will all be considered by the Government during their consultations. We and the fur farmers need more than that. We would not accept "will be considered"—we need to hear the words "will be included." It would be helpful if the Minister could confirm, in any further remarks that he makes, that such income losses will be included in any assessment.
      The Minister alluded to the fact that consultation is due to start in the near future, before Royal Assent, and we welcome that. Have the Government set a target date for the conclusion of the discussions?
      The Government have moved in the direction that we asked them to take at all stages of the Bill in this House and in the other place. We welcome the fact that income losses have been included, but we are less than happy that, even at this late stage, a definition of those losses has not been forthcoming. The fur farmers who will be closed down in two years' time are no wiser about what they will receive in compensation.
      Mr. Douglas Hogg: I begin from the premise that the Bill is offensive and illiberal and should not be enacted, but it has passed through the House and the other place. Consequently, we

      337
      are dealing with what we have got. It would be churlish not to acknowledge that the Bill is somewhat better than it was when it left this place, because it now has a compensation clause.
      Sub-amendment (b) to Lords amendment No. 2 is the most important of the sub-amendments in my name. We need to be clear what the compensation scheme is. The compensation scheme as provided for in the Lords amendments does not provide for full compensation for all losses suffered by all businesses caught by the prohibition, whereas my amendments, if they were enacted by the House, would.
      If one examines the Lords amendments, one finds that the Government have considerable discretion as to what to include or not to include in the scheme. There is a proviso to clause 5, as amended, which is couched in the following language:
      A scheme … need not provide for the making of payments in respect of all income losses or all non-income losses or (as the case may be) in respect of all businesses.
      The Bill now explicitly provides that the compensation need not cover all income losses and all non-income losses, and need not apply to all businesses covered by the prohibition. Therefore, in theory at least, no losses need to be covered and no businesses need to be compensated. That is the effect of the Lords amendment.
      I am doing the Minister the justice of believing that that is not what he would wish. I assume that he wants to cover most income losses, most non-income losses and all businesses, but the House has a right to insist on clear language and to insist further on a proper compensation scheme.
      I acknowledge that, in one sense, what I am urging on the House is different from what I have urged on the House before. I am conscious that compensation schemes have not been provided for other activities that, from time to time, have been prohibited by the House. Indeed, I acknowledge—otherwise, it will be said against me—that I personally am responsible for one such measure: the prohibition on head deboning at the time of the BSE crisis. That did not carry with it a compensation measure, but there are two differences. First, since the deboning measure was put in place, we have enacted the European convention on human rights and incorporated it into domestic law. One consequence is that, in all probability, compensation is a legal requirement in such cases—or, put differently, a prohibition without compensation would probably be deemed to be incompatible with convention rights. That being so, since I enacted a measure there is a change of circumstance which I recognise and which has consequences in law. Secondly, the prohibitions that have been enacted in the past have been done on a different basis from that on which we are operating today. For example, the prohibition on head deboning was done on the basis of a threat to human health. That was the justification for that Bill; actually, I think it was an order.
      This Bill is justified not in terms of any pragmatic or scientific assessment of animal welfare, but on the basis of some assessment of public morality. It is wrong for the House to have done that because, within a democracy, minorities have rights. If one can only do that which the majority approve of, one is not living in a truly free society. We as Members of Parliament must be very
      338
      cautious about enacting proposals simply on the basis that we can get a majority to support them. That is a road to tyranny.
      5.15 pm
      If we are to take such action on such a narrow basis—which I believe to be wrong—it is essential that we put our money where our vote is. If we are to make a prohibition on a basis that I believe to be fundamentally flawed, we must compensate properly and fully. That means—this is what my amendments are intended to achieve—that all businesses caught by the prohibition should receive compensation for all their income losses, and for all their non-income losses.
      Non-income losses can be substantial. Unquestionably—my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss) mentioned this—the capital value of the premises that will be outlawed, together with that of the stock, will be very great. That has been the case in Austria, where a high capital value has been placed on each fur farm—although, naturally, the facts have been under-explained.
      We are depriving people of an important asset which they had every right to expect to see them into old age, providing pension funds and so forth, simply because of our assessment of public morality. I consider that shameful.
      Mr. Roger Gale: My right hon. and learned Friend is a lawyer, which I am not. He may be able to assist me, and prevent me from making a lengthy speech later.
      I do not understand the difference between proactive and reactive prohibition. As my right hon. and learned Friend knows, I am a passionate supporter of the pet travel scheme. We introduced the scheme, and consequently deprived a significant number of quarantine kennel owners—who had set up businesses to serve an Act of Parliament—of their living. They received no compensation. I do not understand how it is possible to compensate generously one section of the business public whom we have deprived of their living, and not compensate another section at all.
      Mr. Hogg: I entirely agree. This is a serious question, which is why I drew attention to the prohibition on head deboning. I recognise that I was the Minister responsible for that prohibition, and that the scheme I introduced did not provide for compensation.
      A variety of approaches have been adopted over many years. For example, some of the firearms legislation did not, in the first instance, provide for proper compensation. I am thinking of the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988. The legislation subsequently did make such provision, but only, I believe, in respect of the capital value of the weapons concerned; it did not provide for compensation for loss of income.
      There is a serious problem relating to compensation. Governments frequently intervene to prohibit or regulate activities, and historically, as a general rule—there are exceptions—we have not provided compensation. An important change has taken place, namely the incorporation into domestic law of the European convention on human rights. It has also been recognised that, given the rights of property enshrined by one of

      339
      the articles—I think it is article 14, although I may be wrong—it is necessary to provide compensation where such rights will be infringed.
      As the House and, probably, the country will realise, there is a difference between intervening to prohibit an activity on grounds of public health or public policy—rather broadly defined—and simply expressing our own preferences in regard to what is right or wrong. If we are to indulge ourselves in the latter respect, which I strongly believe we should not—I hope I have made that plain; I disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale)—we should provide a much more generous compensation scheme than we would provide if we acted on the basis of what is necessary for animal welfare.
      Maria Eagle: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept that capital assets will still be owned by the fur farmers, and that there is an alternative use for those assets? A fur farmer in Scotland found that his capital assets were perfect for the purpose of setting up a farm on which to grow strawberries.
      Mr. Hogg: Clearly, a fur farmer possesses land, and, depending on the quantity and quality of that land, it may have an alternative use. Indeed, it is likely to have an alternative use. However, it is probable that the value of that land and those assets will be much diminished by the prohibition. Regardless, if that land is to be put to an alternative use, there will have to be a very substantial capital investment to transform the physical facilities on the land. Therefore, on any view—we can argue about the extent of the diminution—there will be a very substantial—[Interruption.]
      The hon. Lady is indicating ambivalence. It is not a matter of "if and but"; it would be a serious capital loss. Although only 12 or 13 farmers will be affected—
      Maria Eagle: There are 11.
      Mr. Hogg: I am grateful.
      Why should the House impose on 11 farmers a real loss, when we have it within our ability to compensate them entirely for that loss? I think that that is what we should be doing.
      Mr. Morley: I simply want to deal with the point made by the hon. Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) on the difference between fur farmers and quarantine kennels. Although there are various differences between the two cases, the principal one is that the quarantine regulation changes have not resulted in the closure of quarantine kennels. There is still business for quarantine kennels. Additionally, the quarantine regulation changes do not apply to some countries, where there is endemic street rabies. Consequently, there is still a requirement for United Kingdom quarantine facilities. The fur farming proposals would have a different effect.
      Mr. Hogg: The Parliamentary Secretary's remarks are correct, but they are correct only in part. Although it is perfectly true that there is a requirement for kennels, it is also true that, over time, their volume of business will decrease very substantially. Therefore, if one were to measure year on year, before and after the change in the
      340
      passport laws, one will find a diminution in business because of the change in the quarantine routine. So, although there is a continuing business, there is a loss.
      Mr. John Bercow: Is it not particularly distressing that the order that would be forthcoming consequent upon agreement to Lords amendment No. 2 would not be subject to amendment? Precisely because of the potentially unsatisfactory contents of the scheme, it is essential either that an order be capable of amendment, or, preferably, that the much more generous, all-embracing and specific proposals that my right hon. and learned Friend is making in his amendments be accepted.
      Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend is basically right on both points. However, he is making a much more general point, which I have urged on the House very many times, on statutory instruments. Increasingly, over many years—when Conservative Members were in government, too—the House—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We have strayed into quarantine and strawberries, and now into statutory instruments. Although I am prepared to let the right hon. and learned Gentleman give some background to his amendments, I think that he should now come back to the point.
      Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) has made an important point. If the scheme is introduced by way of a statutory instrument, it could not be amended. He believes, therefore, that my amendment should be passed. I was seeking to agree with him and to say that there is an underlying problem with using statutory instruments, which cannot be amended.
      There is a way round the problem, and I commend it to the Parliamentary Secretary. It is possible to lay draft statutory instruments. If that were done in this case, the House would be able to debate them—in Government time, and on the Floor of the House—so that hon. Members could express a view on the scheme and on the compensation figures. Nevertheless, although that would be one way of meeting some of the concerns expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham, the situation is profoundly unsatisfactory.
      I have always regarded this as a profoundly illiberal and offensive Bill, and I have often spoken against the proposals that it contains, including when they were in a private Member's Bill. Basically, I do not think that the Bill is compatible with the views that I have formed on minority rights in a free society. However, given that we have a Bill of this type, I believe that the House should be as generous as possible on compensation. I also think that the House has to acknowledge that we are dealing with the livelihoods of 11 or so people and with very substantial capital assets.
      It is not right for the House to be presented with a compensation scheme that does not fully address all the losses. I am prepared to accept that there may be some difficulty with expressing the formulae in the Bill, but that the Bill should address all the losses is something on which the House should express a view. I have a very clear view that it should address all the income and

      341
      non-income losses and should extend to all the businesses covered, and that the proviso to the scheme does none of those things.
      Mr. Andrew Hunter: I shall be very brief. I give a cautious and qualified welcome to the Government's acceptance of the Lords amendments. It signifies a potential step in the right direction that could prove to be quite significant. As my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss) said, it is a matter of grave regret that, at this stage, the parameters of the compensation scheme are still unknown and there remains an enormous discrepancy between the Government's apparent thinking and the real loss of income that fur farmers will incur.
      I warmly support the amendment moved by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg). He demonstrates clearly that the Lords amendments do not cover all income and non-income losses. I regard this as an unacceptable state of affairs and I endorse what my right hon. and learned Friend said: that the House should insist on a proper compensation scheme for fur farmers.
      Even with the amendments, this remains a miserable, vindictive, wholly unjustified and unjustifiable Bill. It is draconian and ill-considered. In essence, it is state persecution of a minority to satisfy a perceived prejudice of the majority.
      Mr. Peter Atkinson: I join the chorus of condemnation of the Bill. I am sorry that we are here finishing off a piece of legislation which I agree is deeply illiberal.
      It is a pity that we are here to abolish many people's livelihoods. I take issue with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) as, although the Bill involves 11 farmers with 13 farms, those farms employ a large number of people, some on a full-time basis and many more on a part-time basis. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle) shakes her head; she may like to visit the farm in my constituency where I will introduce her to the staff that work there. Those people have jobs in an area where employment is hard to find, so the Bill will have a considerable impact on the local economy where the farms are based.
      Angela Smith: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the Bill is fundamentally more honest than the proposals made by his hon. Friends in Committee, which would have improved the standards to such an extent that fur farmers would have been put out of business? The Bill will give them compensation, whereas his hon. Friends' proposals would not.
      Mr. Atkinson: I take the standpoint that the whole measure is completely wrong. I think that fur farmers should be allowed to continue their businesses under the existing regulations, which are now being tightened up in Europe to improve the conditions under which mink are kept. The hon. Lady may disagree, but the logic is that our action today will put fur farmers in the United Kingdom out of business, so there will be an increase
      342
      in production, particularly in eastern European countries where conditions are much worse than they are here. What, then, is the benefit for animal welfare? How will the mink benefit?
      We are discussing a narrow measure and I am concerned for my constituent, Mr. Harrison, who tonight is no nearer knowing how much he might get for his business than he was several months ago. Although I appreciate that Ministers hide behind the legalistic fig leaf that they cannot proceed until the Bill has received Royal Assent, I believe that negotiations should have started much earlier so that fur farmers would know precisely how much they were likely to get. We still do not know some of the parameters involved. For instance, for how long will compensation for income be available? How long does it take for a fur farmer to establish another business? I have no idea. Will most of the compensation be paid up front? Under normal compulsory purchase procedures, between 80 and 90 per cent. of compensation is paid up front: will fur farmers benefit from the same provision?
      5.30 pm
      Mr. Hogg: Many fur farmers are near the end of their careers. Does my hon. Friend agree that it will be difficult for them to find alternative employment, whereas they could have hoped to continue with fur farming well into normal retirement?
      Mr. Atkinson: That is correct. My constituent, Mr. Harrison, is a man of middle age—I hope that he will not mind my saying that—and has suffered heart problems that were brought on by the stress of endless day-and-night demonstrations outside his farm. It would be difficult for him to start a new enterprise that would bring him anywhere near the same rewards.
      The hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston has the wrong idea of what a mink farm looks like, as do the Government. In Committee in another place, Baroness Hayman said:
      No compensation should be required for the land—that would have alternative uses—but compensation may be required for buildings and equipment…—[Official Report, House of Lords, 17 October 2000; Vol. 617, c. 34.]
      Most of the fur farm in my constituency is concreted over, or covered with hard standing, so it cannot be dug up to grow strawberries. The hard standing covers several acres, and will have virtually no value after the farm has been closed down.
      Maria Eagle: It is not true that I have no idea what mink farms look like. Will the hon. Gentleman accept that I have visited them, and I have met his constituent, Mr. Harrison?
      Mr. Atkinson: I do accept that, but the hon. Lady's words implied that she thinks that fur farms cover rolling acres. They do not: they are small outfits, and most are made up largely of hard standing and concrete.
      Mr. James Gray: The hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle) protests that she has visited fur farms. I am delighted that she has, but does my hon. Friend recall that on Second Reading of her private Member's Bill on this matter she was forced to admit that

      343
      she had not visited a fur farm? She was determined to ban them anyway. She has since seen reason and visited one, but she had not done so at the time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We do not want to stray too far down that road, nor do we want a Second Reading debate. I hope that the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) will confine himself to the amendments.
      Mr. Atkinson: I take your stricture seriously, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I am sure that the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston—who is now engaged in heated debate with my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) behind your Chair—has visited a fur farm.
      Mr. Bercow: In reflecting on the need for a generous compensation scheme, what assessment has my hon. Friend made of those people who, in 1996 or 1997, might have contemplated starting a career in fur farming in the apparently confident knowledge that the Labour party was not committed to abolishing the industry?
      Mr. Atkinson: My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. I had not considered it, but perhaps the Minister will respond to it.
      My final point concerns the House's ability to review the compensation scheme, when it is at last agreed. If at that time the Government are still talking about £400,000 plus four times that figure for income, they will need to be much more generous. I hope that the Minister will give the House a more generous estimate of the amounts involved in the compensation scheme.
      In addition, it would be right for the House to have a further opportunity to consider the compensation scheme in detail. That would be preferable to the blunt instrument that is the statutory instrument procedure, which allows hon. Members only to reject or accept a proposal. We must be able to ensure that fur farmers are treated generously and fairly.
      Mr. Eric Forth: The abbreviated debate that has taken place thus far illustrates the extent of the problems that arose at the start of this saga—under the previous and the current Bill. It is becoming increasingly obvious that the crucial point on compensation—rightly, a constant theme—has still not been resolved. Despite the Minister's attempt to be helpful, I am not sure that we are much further on.
      I regret not only the Bill itself and its whole basis, but the fact that we find ourselves in the rather demeaning position of discussing a group of people whose livelihood has been destroyed by statute and who are holding out a metaphorical begging bowl for taxpayers' money in compensation. That demeans them and, in a way, it demeans us as well. It raises the question—which I shall not pursue, because you would not permit me to do so, Mr. Deputy Speaker—of whether and when it is appropriate for those whose livelihoods are destroyed or affected by statute to be compensated by the taxpayer in some way. Clearly, the taxpayer would make such compensation, not the Government. The Government have no money; they have our money and they hand it out—usually in fairly ill-conceived ways. We should not forget that.
      344
      In effect the Minister is saying, "Trust me. The form of the compensation scheme has not been worked out yet; I am going to consult". "Consult" is a good word—one much used by Ministers these days. The Minister apparently intends to set up some expert body—I think he said "assessors". That makes my blood run cold. Whenever experts or assessors are involved, we can bet that there will be a mess. Those experts will talk to the potential recipients of the taxpayers' money, so I suppose that we—as the guardians of the taxpayer—are the only people who can make the other side of the argument.
      I can see how the Minister will be involved; his experts and assessors will roam the country to talk to the people who are holding out a begging bowl. This debate is our only opportunity to make representations on behalf of the people whose money is to be handed out. We should not forget that there are two sides to the argument.
      The Minister told us that the assessors will do their thing. Presumably, under the provisions of the Bill, the Government will then make an order to give effect to the details of the scheme. At that point, we surmise, it will come back to the House in the form of a statutory instrument, which of course—as usual—will not be amendable. In any case, the result of all the consultation of which the Minister is so proud will be worked up into a statutory instrument, as the Bill provides; and we shall then be asked to say yes or no to it.
      Mr. Hogg: My understanding of the Bill—the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—is that the statutory instrument will be subject to the negative resolution procedure. That being so, it will not be the subject of an affirmative vote and will almost certainly not be debated by the House.
      Mr. Forth: In my typically generous way, I was trying to give the Minister the benefit of the doubt. My right hon. and learned Friend, whose powers of analysis are legendary, has spotted the fact that there will be no affirmative vote, so I must withdraw my generosity. If the Minister confirms that my right hon. and learned Friend is correct, matters are worse than they seem. We really are no further forward.
      Mr. Bercow: My right hon. Friend has not only been generous to the Government in public: in a conversation I held with him a few moments ago, he was generous about their intentions in private. I trust his experience of this place; he had surmised that the statutory instrument or order would be subject to the affirmative procedure. Does he agree that it is thoroughly unacceptable both that it will not be subject to that procedure and that the Government, in failing to tell us that important fact, are guilty of scurrilous sleight of hand?
      Mr. Forth: I fear that is all too typical. My hon. Friend is a keen observer of these matters; he is aware that a parade of Ministers come to the Chamber to speak to us on various matters, giving us bland words and trying to be reassuring. However, we do not have to dig very deep to find that matters are not as they seem. The Minister has much explaining to do to satisfy Members in the Chamber at present, let alone those unfortunates whose livelihoods are about to be destroyed.
      Clause 5 and the Lords amendments to it are, in many ways, the key to the Bill; that is why their lordships spent so much time on them. The amendments make an attempt,

      345
      do they not, to flesh out and make more satisfactory the definitions of income and non-income, which are at the heart of the compensation scheme? However, I am not sure that they take us much further forward. I recognise that the compensation will be subject to the assessors, the Minister and his officials, consultation and statutory instruments—all that—but before we finally approve the Bill, if we are minded to do so, incorporating the Lords amendments, we need to know what definition of "income" will be used.
      These days, "income" can mean, in a business context, gross or net income. It can mean the gross takings of an enterprise, or its profitable results before or after tax, or before or after deductions. Even that apparently simple word has many possible definitions. We need a much fuller explanation of its meaning here.
      The Minister has said that he is not in a position to explain now, but while we are considering the Lords amendments, as against the original text of the Bill, we are entitled to pause and press the Minister to give us a clearer idea of the way in which he will guide the experts and assessors—which I assume he will want to do—before they go out and meet the unfortunates whose livelihoods are to be destroyed.
      Mr. Morley rose—
      Mr. Forth: Oh, the Minister is going to be helpful now.
      Mr. Morley: It may help if I explain to the right hon. Gentleman that the assessors will be independent assessors. They will not be Ministry officials or Ministry employees. They will conduct the assessment subject to the guidelines laid down by their professional association, which will probably be the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors. There are very clear ways of assessing income and valuation on that basis, and it will be done in consultation with the farmers concerned. If farmers wish their own independent assessors to do the same and to discuss with the Ministry assessors, they are of course free to do so.
      Mr. Forth: That is a very generous offer by the Minister—he is saying, "If you, whose livelihood is about to be destroyed, would like to spend even more of your money getting your experts to argue with the taxpayer-funded experts, you are free to do so". I am grateful to the Minister.
      Mr. Hogg: My right hon. Friend might want to raise the point that the assessment will be done in accordance with the scheme, and the scheme is laid out by the Under-Secretary, and it can be as mean as he likes as long as it falls within the terms of the statute. That is why my amendments are so important.
      Mr. Forth: Of course my right hon. and learned Friend's amendments are important; I accept that. I shall discuss the meanness in due course. I am only just warming up, as he knows, and there is a long way to go yet. As I was getting into my stride, I wanted to see whether I could tease the Minister into giving us an idea of his thinking on gross or net income. He has given us
      346
      no idea, because he has now said that the experts will go out armed with a scheme of some kind, the details of which we do not know but they may or may not know. Even so, and even given that the experts will talk to the unfortunate recipients of taxpayers' money, we have no idea whether the amount of compensation will be based on gross income to the enterprise as an income flow, or whether the experts will pay more attention to net income after expenses, tax and so on. That is rather important.
      When we come to the non-income assets and the compensation for them, we get into even deeper water. I am sure that some people outside this place believed that the compensation scheme would start from the premise that the non-income assets, buildings and particularly land, would be valued independently and expertly—a not unreasonable starting point.
      Now the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle) has brought strawberries into the argument—no doubt trying, in her usual way, to help. However, the strawberry argument is worrying. If the assessment is to take account not just of a valuation of the land, buildings, assets and so on, which we can all well understand, but of all possible alternative uses such as strawberries or otherwise, we are in deep water—if a strawberry can be in deep water. The matter is becoming increasingly complicated.
      5.45 pm
      The Minister appears serene, but I hope that, when he winds up this little debate, he will be able to give us a much clearer idea of when we can begin to consider compensation for non-income assets. Will we start with a clean sheet, and will he say that his experts will be able to consider the way in which the businesses operate and the assets that they deploy, without any constraint or guidelines from him or his officials?
      My hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) was helpful when he described his constituent's fur farm which had been concreted over. I have been led to believe that other fur farms occupy a considerable acreage of a variety of land. I do not know how many strawberries the hon. Member for Garston had in mind when she came up with her idea, but it strikes me that there could be a wide variation in the nature of the non-income assets involved. I hope that that means that there will be a flexible approach towards the compensation that might be available for them.
      The point that I am making in my introductory remarks is that more questions remain than have been answered already. The Bill is in its final stages and people's livelihoods have been threatened. Their lordships have tried to be helpful in sending the amendments to us, but I am not sure that they take us much further forward. Unless the Minister is a lot more persuasive than he has been hitherto, I will not be persuaded that we are heading in the right direction.
      So much for the preliminaries: let us get down to business. The issue of timing has come up in the debate already, and I have considered it. On the face of it, one would have thought that the matter would and should have been resolved already, and not just by clause 5, which is the subject of the amendments. I looked for guidance in clause 7 (3), which states:
      Section 5 shall come into force at the end of the period of two months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.

      347
      It is a matter of detail, but I presume that the term "the Act is passed" means Royal Assent rather than the Act being finally approved by both Houses of Parliament. I do not want to make much of an issue of that, because I suspect that the time difference between the two will not be great. It seems clear that the Act will come into force two months after it is passed.
      The problem is that clause 7(2) says that sections 1 to 4 of the Act will not come into force before 1 January 2003. It is possible that the compensation process, which is the subject of clause 5 and the amendments, will take place in an extended period of time. That leaves many questions unanswered. For example, what would happen if a business went out of business in the interim period? How will we be able to judge whether the fact that a business has failed is attributable to the effect of the Act prior to the date of January 2003? Will the date be taken into account? Will people be able to go into voluntary liquidation as a result of the threat of the Act coming into force, or will they have to wait until it comes into effect?
      The passage of time can have an important influence on the valuation of the assets. For example, on income or non-income assets, the passage of time may lead to considerable variation in the values of the product itself—the unfortunate animals—or the land and buildings. Those values may vary considerably upwards or downwards in a few months and they certainly would in two or three years. That could considerably affect the amount of compensation provided.
      We need to know much more from the Minister on the important subject of the period between the Act being passed and the date of January 2003 or beyond. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham asked, will the compensation scheme continue to exist beyond that date? Although the businesses may be arbitrarily ended by statute on a certain date, it is perfectly possible that there will be a lengthy period beyond that before the formalities are complete and the compensation is required or payable. We need to know more about that.
      Mr. Hogg: My right hon. Friend might press the Minister on another matter. A business that closes down after the Bill is enacted may do so not because its activity is prohibited but because the owner is seeking to get the best value at that time. We do not want the Minister then to say that no compensation is payable because the closure is the result not of the prohibition but of the fur farmer's choice to dispose of his land at the best possible price.
      Mr. Forth: My right hon. and learned Friend helpfully expands a point that I was trying to make. There is considerable doubt about the scope or flexibility in the application of clause 5 and the amendments tabled to it, and whether a voluntary liquidation or going out of business will be treated in the same way as an enforced going out of business. There is a difference. For example, if the value of pelts or, for a reason that we cannot foresee, the value of land or buildings, varied considerably, could farmers determine the timing of their compensation claims or would it be arbitrarily imposed on them by the Minister, his experts and officials? We do not know the answer to that, but we must have it before we decide whether to approve the amendments.
      348
      The amendments hint at that. Lords amendment No. 2 says that the scheme
      need not provide for the making of payments in respect of all income losses or all non-income losses or (as the case may be) in respect of all businesses—
      an escape clause if ever I saw one. When we considered the Bill's text in its different incarnations here and in another place, we were led to believe that, at long last, we were to be given the certainty of a compensation scheme. The people whose livelihoods were going to be destroyed could at least rest easy because they were guaranteed compensation, but Lords amendment No. 2 appears to allow the Minister to wriggle out of that.
      Mr. Bercow: I am of a suspicious turn of mind, as my right hon. Friend is aware. We are told that clause 5 will come into force two months after the Bill becomes an Act. We are also told that clause 5(5) will facilitate an appeal or reference to the Lands Tribunal for determination when someone has been notified of the amount that he is to be paid but is dissatisfied with it. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the provision in Lords amendment No. 2 for circumstances in which no compensation arrangements are to be made could be used as a lever against someone who was intending to negotiate over a relatively long period—as near as possible to the rest of the Act coming into force in 2003—to browbeat him to an early settlement on the basis that he might otherwise get nothing at all?
      Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend is right. Once one gets into that territory, such considerations—regrettably—become all too possible. My hon. Friend's question leads me to ask whether the Lands Tribunal will deal only with disputes that are about amounts or whether they could be about whether compensation should be payable.
      Mrs. Llin Golding: What if the owner of a fur farm dies and has no one in place to manage it? The loss would be tremendous. If he dies within the three years, what happens to compensation for his family? Is it reduced because the farm is non-existent?
      Mr. Forth: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for making that important point. It is a subset of the argument that I made a moment ago concerning the possible variation in value, which would decrease rather rapidly in the tragic circumstances that the hon. Lady described. Is the Minister satisfied that proper arrangements will be made if such events unfold? Does he agree that the value—income or non-income—could be dramatically affected by them? I hope that he will respond to our concerns about that.
      On the Lands Tribunal, hon. Members who have been following the Bill's tortuous passage through Parliament will recall that we wanted a body other than the Lands Tribunal to play a part in the scheme, because we were unhappy about that organisation's ability and expertise to deal with such matters properly. The compensation arrangements as set out in clause 5 and the amendments have given us a different angle to consider and have given rise to another doubt in our minds.
      If the Minister, feeling more hard-hearted than normal, were to invoke the provisions of Lords amendment No. 2 and say that he was not prepared to provide compensation, could that be regarded as a dispute under clause 5(5) and

      349
      be referred to the Lands Tribunal? In other words, will the Lands Tribunal be a court of appeal against the Minister—urged on by his officials, experts or others—saying that no payment will be made? We need to know, because that will be an important aspect of the way in which the scheme operates and relevant to the reassurances that we want to give to people whose livelihoods are about to be taken away from them.
      Mr. Hogg: My right hon. Friend gets to the root of the scheme. The problem is that the compensation and the categories of people who are entitled to it flow from the scheme as published. Does my right hon. Friend accept that the real problem is that the House will never have the opportunity to discuss—and, therefore, to shape—the scheme on which the answers to the question posed by my right hon. Friend will ultimately depend?
      Mr. Forth: I am prepared—just once more—to be slightly more generous to the Minister than my right hon. and learned Friend. The Minister could give us an undertaking even now—
      Mr. Bercow: If he were listening.
      Mr. Forth: He appears not to be, but the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is here. Perhaps he will intervene and give us an assurance that the House will at the very least have the opportunity explicitly to debate—[Interruption.] It was worth a try. Had the right hon. Gentleman stayed, he would have had that opportunity, but perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary can confirm that the matter will come back to the House, even if we cannot amend it, so that we have the chance to throw it out completely and tell the Government to think again. That series of questions requires an answer.
      Intriguingly, Lords amendment No. 3 seeks to change the wording of clause 5(2)(b), which at present states that the scheme may specify the amounts of the payments to be made or the basis on which such amounts are to be calculated, adding after "basis" the words "or bases". I am not sure whether that is an improvement. I can see the argument both ways. We might decide, as the other place did, that if we restricted the measure to one scheme with a single basis, it would not be sufficiently flexible to deal with the undoubtedly different circumstances that surround all the enterprises that might be affected. It could be argued that we require more than one basis, which is what the amendment does. That might be a plus, but in some circumstances could become a disadvantage.
      6 pm
      It is not impossible to envisage schemes designed to minimise rather than maximise payments to the unfortunates whose livelihoods are about to be destroyed by this statute. We have no idea, as far as I am aware, of the amounts of money that the Minister has available to him to give in compensation. We know with a reasonable degree of certainty how many enterprises will be affected, although that figure is not as firm as some might think because of the amount of time that may pass and other varying circumstances. However, we certainly do not know the effect of the passage of time, and it is at least
      350
      possible, until we are reassured otherwise by the Minister, that several different schemes, as allowed under the proposed wording in Lords amendment No. 3, could be devised to be as miserly rather than as generous as possible.
      The Minister has given us no idea of his thinking on the matter. Is he going to instruct his officials and assessors to devise schemes that will recognise as fully and generously as possible all effects—income and non-income—on the enterprises? Will he say that he knows that any compensation will come from taxpayers' money but that Parliament has decided to remove fur farmers' livelihoods and that therefore they should be fully compensated? Will we all be able to hold our heads up at least in the knowledge that when the jackboot of government has walked across those people's land, they will be properly and adequately compensated?
      Mr. Bercow: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is important to know, and to know this evening, the significance of the use of the plural? The Minister's brow is furrowed, but there is no need for any misunderstanding. Would it not be helpful to know whether the existence of a number of bases of calculation will afford some choice for the victim, or whether it is simply a vehicle for the exercise of administrative fiat by a bureaucrat?
      Mr. Forth: That is of course the point at issue. It is not unreasonable to ask the Minister whether at this stage he would be prepared to give some reassurance—not to us, although we, as custodians of the taxpayer, need some as well. The thrust of this short debate is that we want the victims to have as much knowledge as possible of what the Government have in mind, the direction in which they want to move and the amounts of money that might be involved. I do not think that that is asking too much.
      The Minister could say, "I have £6 million"—or £60 million or £600 million. He could say that his guidance to the experts and assessors will be to find ways in which to give the people affected as much compensation as is properly possible. Or one could envisage circumstances in which he could say the complete opposite: "We want to get away with paying as little as possible because we do not like these people, which is why we are destroying their livelihoods, and we do not see why they should get much of the taxpayers' money." There is a wide spectrum between the one and the other, and any number of positions in between.
      Lords amendment No. 5 confused me; I am not really sure how much further it is supposed to take us. Perhaps the Minister will explain. The proposal is no doubt an attempt to be helpful but—and here is an interesting question—does it really add anything? Does it clarify, elucidate or help us in any way? Presumably, their lordships believed that they were being helpful. Perhaps they were bamboozled by the Government and the Government came up with the words. It would be fairly typical of them if they did. I cannot imagine that the amendment is designed to be helpful. Let us look at it again:
      "income losses" means losses of income.
      That does not help me very much.
      Mr. Hogg rose—
      Mr. Forth: Perhaps it helps my right hon. and learned Friend.
      Mr. Hogg: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is interesting that the amendment does not stipulate "all income losses"? One can imagine at least two classes of income loss. One is trading loss—the ordinary profit and loss account—and the other the loss of the rental that a farmer might receive if he let out the facilities. My right hon. Friend will know that I have tabled an amendment that includes the word "all", which would mean that all income losses would fall within the scheme. Does he think that there is merit in that?
      Mr. Forth: I had hoped that it would go without saying that I find merit throughout my right hon. and learned Friend's amendments. Indeed, I hope to be supporting him. If the Government are foolish enough not to accept his amendments, I hope that he will seek to divide the House on them. I will certainly give him every assistance in that so that we can tell who is who and who is coming from where in this argument.
      To return to the words of the Lords amendment, even my right hon. and learned Friend has not been able to help me. In fact, I am now more worried. Even if we added the word "all", the proposal might help us or it might confuse the issue and muddy the waters. I am beginning to suspect that much in the Bill—and, if I may say so, the amendments, which I suppose were designed to be helpful—takes us no further forward, gives us little advice on what is going on and leaves us with numerous questions for the Minister.
      I should have thought that, by this stage—having been through the preliminary bout of the private Member's Bill of the hon. Member for Garston and all the proceedings here and in another place on this Government Bill—we would have arrived at the crossing of t's and dotting of i's, but we have done nothing of the kind. Without trying very hard, my right hon. Friends and I have come up with a myriad of questions. The Minister looks as if he wants to be helpful—I hope he does—and perhaps will be able to avoid any contention or a Division by coming forward reasonably and helpfully as he always does. He is smiling encouragingly; I hope that he will give a full explanation so that we can all rest easy knowing the shape of the Bill, the direction it will take, the guidance that will be given and what we can expect.
      The Minister might even ice the cake by giving an undertaking that any detailed scheme devised by his experts, in consultation and so on, will be put before the House. I would like any such decision to be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, but at least under the negative resolution procedure we would be given a chance to consider the scheme and then decide whether to accept it or throw it out because we could not amend it.
      Such questions are just a hint of those that come readily to the surface. We have not even dug deeply. I would not test your patience, Mr. Deputy Speaker, by trying to do so today. We have just quickly skimmed the surface. All such questions arise from the Lords amendments. I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure us, help us and give us all the information that we feel we need at this stage to make our assessment as a House.
      Mrs. Golding: I, too, have been puzzled by the "non-income losses" to which amendment No. 5 refers.
      352
      I cannot work out what it means either. Does the right hon. Gentleman think that it could mean losses to do with the hooligans who stand outside fur farmers' houses, damage their property, scrape their cars and let down or slash their tyres, as they have in my constituency? Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would explain.
      Mr. Forth: I am grateful to the hon. Lady; such things will have to be looked at. If the Minister is serious about the consultation process that he has described—in which, I guess, his assessors would be armed with guidelines, criteria and some standard scheme, which seemed to impress him—assessors would talk to the hon. Lady's constituents and others affected about the basis on which the scheme should be devised. If that worked properly, it would be an opportunity for those affected to point out that, as the hon. Lady has said, some people have been subject to the most ghastly victimisation, thuggery and destruction of property, all in the name of animal rights and welfare. I hope that that will be fully taken into account.
      Mr. Hogg: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way. The hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding) raised an important point. Many of fur farmers have incurred huge security expenditure in trying to guard their property against the offensive activity carried out by those trying to disrupt their business and by the proponents of the Bill outside the House. Should not such substantial security expenditure be recoverable?
      Mr. Forth: I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend. That touches on a question that arose earlier—whether the security measures had been put in some time ago or recently. It is perfectly possible that they were put in just before people were made aware, through a manifesto or whatever else, that it was the intention of new Labour to destroy their livelihood.
      There is another, related question—whether the security arrangements would enhance the value of the property. I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for pointing me in that direction. It is possible that the security arrangements would be useful to protect the strawberries when they came on to the scene.
      The strawberries mentioned by the hon. Member for Garston are becoming an important part of the debate. When we were discussing income and non-income losses in terms of the Lords amendments and the clause in its original form, the hon. Lady helpfully pointed out that in at least one case, a fur farm had been converted—profitably, she implied—to the growing of strawberries. We would have to consider such alternative use. When we introduce the matter of security arrangements, that raises the interesting question of the extent to which those could be seen as enhancing the value of the property, depending on what its alternative use might be. Another area of doubt has appeared, which I hope the Minister—
      Mrs. Golding rose—
      Mr. Forth: I will give way to the hon. Lady, although I am desperately trying to conclude—
      Mr. John Gummer rose—
      Mr. Forth: Now I am besieged. I give way to my right hon. Friend, then I will be more than happy to give way to the hon. Lady.
      Mr. Gummer: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. On his point about income losses meaning losses of income, I find it difficult to understand how income losses could mean anything else. In clause 5, to which Lords amendment No. 5 refers, it is difficult to find any instance in which the term "income losses" is used, but many other terms much more otiose than that are used. Does my right hon. Friend consider that that phrase properly refers to clause 5(2)? If not, clause 5(2) ought to have some similar explanation, if an explanation is necessary in so simple a matter as income losses and non-income losses.
      Mr. Forth: Subject to what the Minister may say to guide us, that is what Lords amendment No. 2 may be intended to do. It refers to
      the description or descriptions of income losses and the description or descriptions of non-income losses in respect of which payments are to be made
      and to
      the description or descriptions of businesses in respect of which payments are to be made.
      In other words, the scheme is obliged to take account of those. The clause goes on, rather worryingly, as my right hon. Friend will know, to introduce an exclusion clause, which could potentially mean that nothing was paid at all.
      However, we know the Minister well enough—or we hope that we do—to know that that is not in his mind. He may want to tell us why he is prepared to recommend to the House that that amendment be included. He may even tell us whether it was the Government or he himself who initiated it, or whether it arose in another place, has come to us in the form of a Lords amendment and is accepted by the Government with more or less reluctance.
      6.15 pm
      Mr. Gummer: Perhaps I did not make myself clear. I do not understand why the Government seek to change the wording of clause 5(2) and why, having changed the wording, presumably to make it clearer, they need an addendum to explain what the clearer wording means, whereas they did not need an addendum to explain what the original, less clear, wording meant. Can that be cleared up?
      Mr. Forth: Not by me. I am as puzzled as my right hon. Friend. [Interruption.] As my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) helpfully says, I am not the author. My right hon. Friend simply reinforces what I said earlier: we need an explanation from the Minister as to whether the proposed new wording is helpful or obfuscatory. I suspect that it may be the latter.
      Mr. Bercow: Given the uncertain impact of security considerations on the value of the sites—a consideration that my right hon. Friend helpfully highlighted—does he agree that it becomes particularly important to ensure that the consultation process is long enough to allow these matters properly to be taken into account? If the Government do not see sense, is there not a danger that if clause 5 is implemented two months after the passage of the Act, it will be arbitrary, capricious and damaging?
      Mr. Forth: I hope that my hon. Friend is incorrect. Again, the Minister is under an obligation to give us a
      354
      clearer idea of the scope and duration of the consultation process. One can see arguments both ways. One imagines that the people whose livelihoods are to be destroyed by the statute may want the matter to be resolved as quickly as possible, but is there not a tension between that and the need for proper consultation and for the matter to be properly dealt with by the Minister's experts and assessors?
      I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the matter. It would be appropriate—nay, essential—for the Minister to tell us, in his introduction to the Lords amendments, how long he believes the consultation process should go on in order to meet all the requirements.
      So many questions have been raised during the debate, although the matter looked so simple—
      Mrs. Golding: I am sorry to intrude on the right hon. Gentleman's concluding remarks. It occurred to me that when the consultations had virtually finished, the so-called animal rights protesters—those thugs—might come along and release mink again, as they did to the fur farmer in my constituency. The fur farmer would then have to meet the cost of rounding the animals up and installing additional security for a very short time. Would that be taken into account, even though an agreement was already in hand?
      Mr. Forth: The hon. Lady raises an important point. Let us envisage the circumstances in which the assessors have consulted and agreed with the victims how the package will operate. The statutory instrument is then devised and brought before the House—under which procedure, we know not yet. I hope that we will be reassured by the Minister.
      Under the terms of the package, the assessors go out again, armed with their thick book of regulations about how the scheme will work, run their slide rule over the concrete or whatever it may be—the buildings and so on—and arrive at a figure. They go away and everybody feels reassured, except that between that point and the finalisation, the thugs come along and wreak further havoc on the innocent person plying his legal trade, and diminish the value of the property.
      What mechanism, the hon. Lady asks, exists to allow for the fact that there may be a dramatic reduction in the value of the property, and possibly also the livestock, caused by mindless thugs between the time of the apparent settlement of the compensation and the payment being made? Will there be an expiry time? That takes us back to a question that we have already raised. One can begin to see that all these questions interrelate and interact in a way—[Interruption.] If the late-coming hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks) wants to intervene—[Interruption.]
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order.
      Mr. Forth: Indeed, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As you know, I am always happy to take proper interventions, even from the hon. Gentleman, but I am trying to conclude my remarks.
      The hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme has raised an important point—not a theoretical point, but one which, given the experience of her constituency, could well arise in the most regrettable, unfortunate and, frankly, disgusting circumstances.

      355
      We have posed a number of questions to the Minister. It is his job now to seek to reassure the House on those matters before we have to make up our minds whether to divide the House. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) might agree that if the Minister can answer all our questions to our satisfaction, fully and comprehensively, he will consider not pressing the amendment to a Division. However, if the Minister falls short of that standard and requirement, we may want to test the view of the House.
      Mr. Norman Baker: I shall try to redress the balance of the debate. We have heard several speeches against the Bill, and I remind the House that so far the Bill has worked its way successfully through all stages in this place and in another place. I hope that it is now close to enactment. A clear majority of Members on both sides of the Chamber support it, and it has clear support among the public. I introduced a Bill to outlaw fur farming in March 1998. The issue has been the subject of considerable discussion and it is disingenuous for the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) to say—I hope that I quote him accurately—that this is the only opportunity to make representations. There have been many opportunities to make representations on the Bill—
      Mr. Forth: Not on Lords amendments.
      Mr. Baker: My reference to the right hon. Gentleman's remarks did not refer only to Lords amendments. It related to the compensation package, which has been discussed ad infinitum, if not ad nauseam, in the House, in Committee and in another place.
      There are about 13 fur farmers throughout the country. They can feel that they have had a good innings in the House and elsewhere in terms of their views being represented. I do not wish to denigrate those people because the rights of one individual in this country are as important philosophically as the rights of 1 million people. When somebody's livelihood is taken away it is appropriate that the issues are properly discussed and subject to scrutiny, and that has happened in this instance. I have supported the process and participated in it. The issues have been thoroughly aired, and we can feel justified in having participated in that process.
      The hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson)—
      Mr. Hogg: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us what he thinks the compensation amounts to?
      Mr. Baker: I wish to make progress, but I shall take up that specific point. We have had what I regard as clear assurances from the Minister that the compensation scheme will be introduced. There are signs that it will be widened beyond the scope that it would have had previously. It is for the Minister to make his own case. I believe that he is an honourable man, and when he says that compensation will be provided, I believe that it will be. I am happy to take his word for that. I do not believe that a charlatan scheme will be introduced to defraud about a dozen people. We have had clear assurances, and for Members to suggest otherwise is to be somewhat disingenuous.
      Mr. Bercow: As the hon. Gentleman knows, I have the highest respect for him. Will he accept from me that no
      356
      Conservative Member, as far as I am aware, is suggesting that the Minister is a charlatan. Certainly not. However, there is scope for honest difference of opinion. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that it is dangerous for him to imply that the fur farmers should be rather grateful that these matters have taken up as much time as they have in the House, when they are innocent victims? Does he accept also that the details of compensation arrangements are crucial and not minor matters, and that they should properly be subject to the affirmative procedure?
      Mr. Baker: The time of the House is necessarily limited—
      Mr. Peter Atkinson: By what?
      Mr. Baker: For one thing, there are only so many hours in the day.
      Mr. Forth: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will you confirm that the Order Paper clearly indicates that there is no limitation on time for this debate, or happily on the one that is to follow?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: There is no time limitation if the House agrees the 10 o'clock motion. I think that the right hon. Gentleman knows that his intervention is unnecessary. The context in which the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker) made his point was perfectly clear.
      Mr. Baker: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for your stout defence. I shall try to remember the interventions and return to them. I do not want to lose the points.
      The time of the House is limited in the sense that there are 24 hours a day and seven days in a week, and many matters can be brought before the House. For example, the Minister, who is sitting in his place patiently, might be at Lewes dealing with the 400 people who have been evacuated from their houses, and with businesses that have been driven out of the area by the recent floods. However, he is in his place and—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is falling into a similar trap to the one that I have just described.
      Mr. Baker: Of course, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I accept your stricture.
      I return to the intervention of the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), on which I was invited to comment. Of course our respect is mutual. I agree that the statutory instruments should be amendable under the affirmative procedure. It is a point that I have often made in the House. The point goes wider than this debate and the amendment. I will not stray further down that road. The Government should agree that it is in their interests to adopt the affirmative procedure in the interests of good legislation, rather than have errors creep in subsequently.
      The hon. Member for Hexham described the Bill—I believe that I am right—as "deeply illiberal". As a Liberal, I do not regard it as such. I recognise that there is a balance to be struck. Rights are being removed from individuals and the House should be extremely careful when it takes that course. Equally, there are significant public ethic issues to be addressed. The majority of the

      357
      population believe that fur farming is unethical, and the Government have responded to that. I believe that the correct balance has been struck.
      The compensation scheme has featured in much of the discussion so far. There are inconsistencies in the way in which compensation matters are dealt with now, and historically. The right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) talked about head deboning. The hon. Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) talked about quarantine, quite rightly. We are talking about people who have had their businesses slashed. The number of customers who will use their kennels has been significantly reduced. It is proper to bring that issue into the debate. I accept that there is no compensation in that case. However, there was no compensation for the thousands of miners who had their livelihoods removed by the Conservative Government, who implemented a vindictive policy through the then Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.
      It is difficult to argue for a rigorous compensation scheme that is absolutely watertight when the same principles have not been applied in other instances.
      Mr. Forth: My memory may be failing me. I find that I have more senile moments as time passes. However, I recall that miners received very generous compensation or redundancy packages when their livelihoods were removed. I would be surprised if the hon. Gentleman cannot remember that.
      Mr. Baker: That is not my recollection. However, I shall pass on the right hon. Gentleman's comments to the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). They can discuss whether the miners received a generous compensation package.
      Compensation has been the issue. I think that Members should accept the assurances that we have received from Ministers. As I have said, I agree with the hon. Member for Buckingham that statutory instruments should be amendable by being subject to the affirmative procedure. However, that is not how legislation works. The procedure was not changed in 18 years of Conservative Government. Surely it is rather difficult for them to argue that the procedures are not right now. They did not seek to change them when they were in government for such a long time.
      We should try to make progress. I shall shortly resume my place to make my contribution towards that end. I say gently to the Opposition that I, along with many others, do not equate the length of speeches to the effectiveness of opposition. If they were to make more effective points rather more succinctly, the Government might be more sympathetic towards them. Perhaps they might apply that tactic on occasion.
      The Bill has been a long time coming, and many people want to see it enacted. The amendments are satisfactory and I hope that we will not continue to make mountains out of molehills. Let us treat the issues seriously, seek assurances from Ministers and seek also to make progress.
      Mr. Gummer: A point that has only recently been touched on worries me. I need to raise it, given my experience. It is—[Interruption.] When the hon. Member
      358
      for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle) hears the point, she will understand why I am raising it. When I was Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, I was concerned with compensation for those who were in Land Settlement Association areas. [Interruption.] If the hon. Members for Basildon (Angela Smith) and for Garston waited a moment, they would have found that one sometimes apologises for getting things wrong. We got something wrong when we specified that the compensation would not attract taxation. Under those circumstances, people who had been defrauded of much of their livelihood as a result of the appalling manner in which the Land Settlement Association had been run expected to get compensation under a scheme that was clear to the public, unlike the scheme that we are now considering. Those people then found themselves without that compensation because the Inland Revenue demanded that some of it should come back to the Revenue in taxation.
      6.30 pm
      I am sure that the Minister will not repeat that mistake. However, a problem arises as a result of amendment No. 5. which inserts into clause 5 the words "income losses". By changing the original language of the clause, it may well be that that which would not have been taxable has become taxable. I have a fundamental reason for raising this matter. When the Minister puts into operation what, I am sure, will be an honourable and decent scheme, he will be given the gross figures involved, so he may feel that the compensation is perfectly reasonable. However, once taxation is applied, he may think otherwise.
      Mr. Hogg: My right hon. Friend makes a serious point and I am familiar with the scheme to which he referred. Will he consider the suggestion that the Inland Revenue should be consulted on the scheme before it is published and should give clear guidance on its implications? All parties should be involved in those early discussions with the Revenue.
      Mr. Gummer: I am sure that the Minister can only assent to my right hon. Friend's suggestion, as this matter raises considerable difficulties. The Minister will know that several of my right hon. Friends and I are still fighting a case that ought to have been sorted out about 12 years ago. The hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker) rightly underlined the fact that, philosophically, the concerns of one of Her Majesty's subjects are as important as those of 1 million. I believe that that is a practical as well as a philosophical argument, because if the House is here for anything, it is to defend individuals, especially those who do not happen to be very popular. I am afraid that fur farmers are such individuals. None the less, they have been carrying out what, until now, was a perfectly legal activity which, in almost every other country, is still legitimate.
      Mr. Hogg: Including the European Union.
      Mr. Gummer: Those countries include our colleagues in the European Union, and many arguments about the Bill derive from that point.
      Those people ought not to be denied what they might reasonably expect from compensation, which is why I find it difficult to accept the Lords amendments. The Minister

      359
      will have to explain why we cannot know more about the sums involved and the kind of circumstances in which he hopes to act. However, he must make certain things absolutely clear, and, in that regard, I am not sure whether my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) went far enough in asking for a pre-discussion with the Inland Revenue. I know perfectly well that, if that discussion took place without ministerial direction, the Inland Revenue would say that income losses meant losses of income and, in that case, must attract income tax. That is unacceptable in the circumstances because the losses of income are, by their nature, putative, whereas income is something that one actually gets. I have always thought it unfair to equate those things as plainly as the Inland Revenue does, but it will do that unless the Minister makes the matter clear beforehand. For that to happen, he must make an agreement before he fixes any figures.
      Mr. Bercow: There is a compelling moral case for the compensation to be tax free. However, does my right hon. Friend agree that if the compensation or part thereof is in the form of a redundancy payment, it should be automatically tax free up to a certain level? It would be immensely helpful if the Minister made that clear in his winding-up speech.
      Mr. Gummer: Under the wording of the amendment, the Inland Revenue would not accept the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow). The amendment's wording is not as good as the original wording in the Bill, because it makes it more difficult for the Inland Revenue to take the view that my hon. Friend advocates. Income losses are given at a time when redundancy becomes inevitable as the result of legislation being passed.
      Mr. Hogg: Building on that point, does my right hon. Friend agree that when a sum is decided, it is important that there is a clear apportionment of income losses and non-income losses, otherwise there is a serious risk that tax will be raised on non-income losses? If losses were clearly distinguished, there is a good argument for saying that the Inland Revenue should not raise any taxes on non-income losses, although it might have a claim on income losses.
      Mr. Gummer: My right hon. and learned Friend is right. I am making this speech because, unless we make the matter clear, the mistakes of previous Labour and Conservative Governments in not making things plain in advance to the Land Settlement Association will be repeated. I am not saying that to be antagonistic, as I understand the Minister's problem. I do not share the position of those who have a particular view on fur farming. I do not have a constituency or other interest in the matter, although I am instinctively on the side of those who feel that they are being bullied or who may, in fact, be bullied. Manifestly, those people have been bullied by those who thought that self-righteousness overcame the rule of law.
      We do not come to the matter in happy circumstances. Some people who will not get compensation have already been driven from their jobs by those who thought that they had the right to do that in a free country. I have risen to reiterate the role of a Member of Parliament and defend
      360
      people in those circumstances. Will the Minister assure us that he will make clear the distinction that I have drawn? Will he make a clear, public statement about what the Inland Revenue intends to do, and will he seek to lessen, if not stop, any calculation of income tax on compensation?
      I hope that the Minister will go further and deal with the other part of the problem. In the case of non-income losses, will he assure the House that he will be as generous as possible? One should always be generous when asserting one's right to moral superiority. Those people who will lose their jobs do not agree with the decision that the House of Commons and the House of Lords are about to take. We are doing something extremely difficult and asserting that our moral understanding is superior to theirs, whether that is or is not the case. In those circumstances, if we are not to be thought extremely self-righteous, we need to be particularly generous in compensating those whom we are disadvantaging in this way. The House must recognise the seriousness of the issue.
      I hope that, given the number of people concerned, the Minister will conclude that generosity should mark his decisions, and that it should extend to a group not known for their generosity—the Inland Revenue commissioners. Were he to do so, he would avoid many years of altercation on the matter and, given the moral opprobrium that has been placed upon these perfectly legitimate businesses, he would gain a reputation as someone who understood the delicacy of the matter.
      Mr. Morley: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker) for his support, particularly on the Government's intention to ensure that compensation is fair.
      I understand the point made by the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) on the tax treatment of compensation payments. That will depend on the arrangements set up under the compensation scheme, which will be subject to consultation, but I have asked Ministry officials to ensure that they liaise with the Inland Revenue on the tax consequences when the details of the scheme are being worked out. I hope that that reassures the right hon. Gentleman.
      Mr. Gummer: Will the right hon. Gentleman be kind enough to say that when his officials liaise on that matter, they will also liaise on the Land Settlement Association issue, so that it can be cleared up at the same time?
      Mr. Morley: The right hon. Gentleman strays beyond the bounds of this narrow debate.
      I gently remind the right hon. Gentleman that the previous Administration were responsible for the banning of sow stalls and tethers. There were sound veterinary arguments for that, but also ethical and moral issues concerning the way in which we treat animals. Farmers who switched into those systems received no compensation. In contrast, this Bill does provide compensation.
      The hon. Members for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss), for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) and for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter), and the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), asked about the details of the scheme. The compensation scheme was much debated on Second Reading and in Committee, when some of the thinking behind the scheme was set

      361
      out. However, the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst takes seriously the scrutiny of measures such as this, as he is entitled to do, so I shall try to answer his questions.
      This is enabling legislation and it is common for such measures to provide for a compensation scheme. The nature of the compensation scheme will be subject to consultation and it will be approved by negative resolution. That is the normal procedure, as it was under the previous Administration. The consultation procedure will be open and public, and people will be able to make their views known. The fur farmers, the people most directly involved, will be part of that.
      6.45 pm
      Mr. Forth: I invite the hon. Gentleman to go a little further and undertake, on behalf of the Government, that when the matter returns in the form of a statutory instrument, if it is prayed against the Government will provide time for it to be debated.
      Mr. Morley: The right hon. Gentleman is an extremely experienced Member and he knows that I shall follow the long-standing procedures which are laid down by the House.
      The calculation of income losses will be on the basis of, for example, loss of trading profits, the overall financial state of the industry and its prospects and the individual condition of each business. Non-income losses will include matters such as buildings, equipment, breeding stock and young stock for slaughter. No compensation should be required for the land as it has alternative uses. Compensation may be required for buildings and equipment that do not have alternative uses. A range of other matters could be included in determining compensation, and they were dealt with on Second Reading and in Committee.
      Mr. Forth: I am disappointed that the Minister has just said that no compensation will be allowed for land because it has alternative uses. Does he accept that it is conceivable that some land might not have any alternative use, as in the case referred to of the concreted-over land, or that, even where land had an alternative use, it might be far less valuable? Is he really saying—even before consultation—that the scheme that he envisages will not include any element of compensation for the value of land?
      Mr. Morley: If fur farmers feel that no use whatever can be made of their land, I am sure that they will make that point in the consultation. However, generally speaking I do not accept that. The hon. Member for Hexham referred to the concrete bases, but in the example given by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle) the strawberries are grown on tables under low sheds, laid out in exactly the same way as fur farms. I have been to such strawberry farms and they are commercially successful. I am not saying that all fur farmers could convert to such a business, but it is an option which could be considered.
      Mr. Hogg: The Minister will have to reconsider the matter because fur farming is an intensive activity and
      362
      relatively small areas of land can be used profitably. If fur farming is prohibited, the owner of that land may not be able to find an alternative intensive use. The land might be sold only as ordinary arable land, which would yield much less profit, so the capital value would be much lower. The Minister's response is unsatisfactory.
      Mr. Morley: The strawberry farm is an example of a relatively small area of land being used intensively and profitably. However, each fur farmer will have different circumstances and different issues to raise, and that is why there can be no catch-all measure at this stage. Therefore, it is right and proper that the Bill should be an enabling measure so that such matters can be taken into account during the consultation.
      I can also confirm to the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst that the Lands Tribunal will be a process of appeal, and there will be the option of arbitration before the Lands Tribunal, which again is a new measure. We accept that the process will give rise to certain costs, such as the demolition of buildings, which fur farmers may legitimately argue should be covered by the compensation scheme, and we shall give sympathetic consideration to that.
      The consultation process has already started and we are trying to make progress. As soon as the Bill receives Royal Assent, independent assessors will talk to fur farmers. We expect to be able to consult the industry in the spring on the detail of the compensation scheme following the examination of their books. That will take between eight and nine months and preparation will be able to proceed even during the statutory two-month period after Royal Assent. I understand that the fur farmers want to make progress and we shall do all that we can to ensure that.
      I was surprised by the comments of the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham in relation to head deboners that matters might have been different had human rights legislation existed at that time which required him to give compensation. He could have given that compensation had he chosen to do so, but he chose not to. Following discussion on the Bill proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Garston, I made it clear that the Government would include a provision for compensation for income lost. I was under no obligation to do so at the time, but I endeavoured to put in place a fair compensation scheme in consultation with my hon. Friend and the National Farmers Union. As it happens, it was felt in the other place that that provision should be firmer and that there should be a requirement to compensate for income. That is what the amendments tabled there seek to achieve. We do not oppose them and recommend their acceptance.
      Amendments (a) and (b) to Lords amendment No. 2 would not have the effect that I suspect was intended by the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham. As he spelled out, they would remove the Minister's discretion to be selective in determining the businesses that are eligible for compensation through their closure under the Bill. Furthermore, they would require the Minister to compensate all businesses that carry out the banned activities. We have already said that we intend to provide a compensation scheme that is fair and reasonable to the businesses that close because of the Bill, following either Royal Assent or the effecting of a commencement order not before 1 January.

      363
      Amendment (b) would require the Government to provide compensation to all businesses carrying out the banned activities. However, the Government have announced that only fur farming businesses that existed on 2 March 1999 will be eligible to claim compensation. On 30 November 1999, fur farmers were reminded in writing of that cut-off, which was announced when my hon. Friend the Member for Garston presented her private Member's Bill. It was stated that any fur farm established after the cut-off date or which closed down before Royal Assent would not be eligible for compensation. The Government must, therefore, have discretion to limit, in the way that I have described, the businesses eligible for compensation. Amendment (b) would remove that discretion and, if accepted, could mean that fur farms that were abandoned years ago and are standing empty could be opened up and so be eligible for compensation.
      Mr. Hogg: I am not sure that the Parliamentary Secretary is right. If he reads the amendment, he will see that only those who were rendered illegal and caught by the prohibition would attract compensation. However, that is not my main point. Why does the Bill contain the explicit statement that compensation need not be paid in respect of all income losses and non-income losses, or, indeed, in respect of all businesses? The Parliamentary Secretary has released himself from any obligation.
      Mr. Morley: It is important to allow some discretion in the application of the provision, especially with regard to businesses that are in operation after the cut-off date. That is the primary reason for the wording of the provision; it is also why I cannot agree to proposed amendments (a) and (b) to Lords amendment No. 2. I am sure that hon. Members would not want those amendments to take effect, as they would not safeguard public funds. We do not intend people who are involved in fur farming after the cut-off date to receive compensation.
      Mr. Gummer: Will the Parliamentary Secretary repeat his remarks? I suspect that hon. Members have not followed them. Is he saying that the only reason why he does not tie himself to providing compensation in all circumstances is that he might have to provide it for people whose businesses opened after the due date? If that is the case, why is not his intention made clear in the Bill? Will he now express it clearly so that fur farmers know that they have entitlement in all circumstances and in relation to all businesses and all other activities related to the Bill, the only possible obstruction being the wrong dates?
      Mr. Morley: The right hon. Gentleman's comments show why the wording is as it is. He used the phrase "all other businesses", but, as a former Minister, he will understand the need for Bills to be properly worded. A fur farmer could own a business that is not directly connected with fur farming, and, unless the provision is worded properly, a claim could be made for that business. The wording is intended to ensure that compensation is geared to fur farming and to business that is directly involved with it. It should not involve unrelated businesses or those that started after the cut-off date.
      It has been disappointing to see in some quarters a right-wing opinion suggesting that we cannot take an ethical view on the treatment of animals. Ethics seem to
      364
      be a bit different with regard to matters such as the age of consent. I make no apology for taking an ethical view on behalf of the Government on the way in which we treat animals. Significant welfare concerns have been expressed about the rearing of animals in fur farming systems. For example, mink are semi-aquatic animals and are used to wandering over large ranges and having access to water, so they should not be kept in barren wire cages. We know of examples in which mink have gnawed off their tails because of the frustration of being kept in such conditions.
      Mr. Hogg: What about chickens?
      Mr. Morley: As the right hon. and learned Gentleman suggests, such issues arise also with regard to other intensive rearing systems, which is why they are all being examined. However, the issue of fur farming goes beyond welfare. I doubt whether some of the anxieties that have been expressed about welfare could be addressed in a commercial fur farming system.
      We are introducing the Bill because fur farming is a moral issue; opposition to such farming is based on morality. The fur farming industry does not provide for basic needs and does not justify the killing of an animal. In a modern society, fur farming has no justification in terms of need. There are alternatives to this form of farming, which is not justifiable. For those reasons, I hope that hon. Members will not support the amendments tabled by the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham and that they will give the Bill the support that it deserves.
      Lords amendment agreed to.
      Lords amendment: No. 2, in page 3, line 20, leave out from ("scheme") to ("of') in line 22 and insert
      ("shall, in particular, specify—

      (a) the description or descriptions of income losses and the description or descriptions of non-income losses in respect of which payments are to be made, and

      (b) the description or descriptions of businesses in respect of which payments are to be made,

      but need not provide for the making of payments in respect of all income losses or all non-income losses or (as the case may be) in respect of all businesses.
      () A scheme shall also, in particular—
      () specify the basis or bases")
      Amendment proposed to the Lords amendment: (b), in line 8, leave out "but need not" and insert "and shall".—[Mr. Hogg.]
      Question put, That the amendment to the Lords amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 27, Noes 303.

      Division No. 351]

      [6.58 pm

      AYES

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Gray, James

      Beggs, Roy

      Grieve, Dominic

      Bercow, John

      Gummer, Rt Hon John

      Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

      Hunter, Andrew

      Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

      Leigh, Edward

      Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      (Rushcliffe)

      Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

      Curry, Rt Hon David

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      Gale, Roger

      MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

      Gill, Christopher

      Maclean, Rt Hon David

      365

      Moss, Malcolm

      Whittingdale, John

      Robathan, Andrew

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Robertson, Laurence

      Swayne, Desmond

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Mr. Douglas Hogg and

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Mr. Eric Forth.

      NOES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Cohen, Harry

      Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

      Coleman, Iain

      Ainger, Nick

      Cooper, Yvette

      Alexander, Douglas

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Allen, Graham

      Corston, Jean

      Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

      Cousins, Jim

      Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

      Cox, Tom

      Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

      Crausby, David

      Ashton, Joe

      Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Cummings, John

      Baker, Norman

      Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

      Ballard, Jackie

      Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

      Banks, Tony

      Darvill, Keith

      Barnes, Harry

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Barron, Kevin

      Davidson, Ian

      Bayley, Hugh

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Denham, John

      Beith, Rt Hon A J

      Dismore, Andrew

      Bell, Martin (Tatton)

      Donohoe, Brian H

      Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

      Doran, Frank

      Bennett, Andrew F

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Benton, Joe

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Berminghan, Gerald

      Edwards, Huw

      Best, Harold

      Efford, Clive

      Betts, Clive

      Ennis, Jeff

      Blackman, Liz

      Etherington, Bill

      Blizzard, Bob

      Field, Rt Hon Frank

      Bradley, Keith (Withington)

      Flint, Caroline

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Flynn, Paul

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Follett, Barbara

      Barand, Dr Peter

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Brinton, Mrs Helen

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Foulkes, George

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Galloway, George

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Gardiner, Barry

      Burden, Richard

      George, Andrew (St Ives)

      Burgon, Colin

      George, Bruce (Walsall S)

      Burstow, Paul

      Gerrard, Neil

      Butler, Mrs Christine

      Gibson, Dr Ian

      Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

      Gidley, Sandra

      Cable, Dr Vincent

      Godman, Dr Norman A

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Godsiff, Roger

      Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies

      Goggins, Paul

      (NE Fife)

      Gordon, Mrs Eileen

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Cann, Jamie

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Caplin, Ivor

      Grocott, Bruce

      Casale, Roger

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Caton, Martin

      Hancock, Mike

      Cawsey, Ian

      Hanson, David

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Harvey, Nick

      Chaytor, David

      Healey, John

      Chidgey, David

      Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

      Clapham, Michael

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Clark, Dr Lynda

      Hepburn, Stephen

      (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Heppell, John

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Hesford, Stephen

      Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

      Hewitt, Ms Patricia

      Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

      Hill, Keith

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Hinchliffe, David

      Clelland, David

      Hood, Jimmy

      Clwyd, Ann

      Hope, Phil

      Coaker, Vernon

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

      366

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Mudie, George

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

      Mullin, Chris

      Hurst, Alan

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Hutton, John

      Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      Naysmith, Dr Doug

      Illsley, Eric

      Norris, Dan

      Jackson, Ms Glenda(Hampstead)

      Oaten, Mark

      Jackson, Helen(Hillsborough)

      O'Brien, Bill(Normanton)

      Jamieson, David

      O'Brien, Mike(N Warks)

      Jenkins, Brian

      Olner, Bill

      Johnson, Alan(Hull W & Hessle)

      Organ, Mrs Diana

      Johnson, Miss Melanie

      Pearson, Ian

      (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Pickthall, Colin

      Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

      Pike, Peter L

      Jones, Ms Jenny

      Plaskitt, James

      (Wolverh'ton SW)

      Pollard, Kerry

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Pond, Chris

      Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Pope, Greg

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Pound, Stephen

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Powell, Sir Raymond

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

      Purchase, Ken

      Keetch, Paul

      Radice, Rt Hon Giles

      Kemp, Fraser

      Raynsford, Nick

      Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles

      Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

      (Ross Skye & Inverness W)

      Rendel, David

      Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Khabra, Piara S

      Rogers, Allan

      Kidney, David

      Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

      King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

      Rooney, Terry

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

      Rowlands, Ted

      Kingham, Ms Tess

      Ruane, Chris

      Kumar, Dr Ashok

      Ruddock, Joan

      Ladyman, Dr Stephen

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Lammy, David

      Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

      Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

      Salter, Martin

      Lepper, David

      Sanders, Adrian

      Lislie, Christopher

      Sawford, Phil

      Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Livsey, Richard

      Shaw, Jonathan

      Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

      Sheerman, Barry

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Lock, David

      Shipley, Ms Debra

      Love, Andrew

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Skinner, Dennis

      McCafferty, Ms Chris

      Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

      Macdonald, Calum

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      McDonell, John

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      McNamara, Kevin

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      McNulty, Tony

      Soley, Clive

      Macshane, Denis

      Squire, Ms Rachel

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      McWalter, Tony

      Starkey, Dr Phyllis

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Mallaber, Judy

      Stevenson, George

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Stewart, David (Inverness E)

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Martlew, Eric

      Stoate, Dr Howard

      Maxton, John

      Stringer, Graham

      Meale, Alan

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Merron, Gillian

      Stunell, Andrew

      Michael, Rt Hon Alun

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Michie, Bill (Shefld Heeley)

      Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

      (Dewsbury)

      Mitchell, Austin

      Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

      Moffatt, Laura

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Moore, Michael

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Moran, Ms Margaret

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Morley, Elliot

      Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

      Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle

      Thomas, Gareth R (Ceredigion)

      (B'ham Yardley)

      Timms, Stephen

      Mountford, Kali

      367

      Tipping, Paddy

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan

      Touhig, Don

      (Swansea W)

      Trickett, Jon

      Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

      Truswell, Paul

      Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

      Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

      Winnick, David

      Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Woodward, Shaun

      Tyler, Paul

      Worthington, Tony

      Vis, Dr Rudi

      Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

      Ward, Ms Claire

      Wright, Tony (Cannock)

      Wareing, Robert N

      Wyatt, Derek

      Webb, Steve

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Welsh, Andrew

      Mr. Mike Hall and

      White, Brian

      Mr. Jim Dowd.

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Lords amendment No. 2 agreed to [Special Entry].
      Lords amendments Nos. 3 to 5 agreed to [one with Special Entry].

  DELEGATED LEGISLATION
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to delegated legislation.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

  DELEGATED LEGISLATION

    CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
    That the draft Scotland Act 1998 (Cross-Border Public Authorities) (Adaptation of Functions etc.) (No. 2) Order 2000, which was laid before this House on 2nd November, be approved.
    That the draft Scotland Act 1998 (Transfer of Functions to the Scottish Ministers etc.) (No. 2) Order 2000, which was laid before this House on 2nd November, be approved.
    That the draft Scotland Act 1998 (Modifications of Schedule 5) Order 2000, which was laid before this House on 13th November, be approved.—[Mr. Pope.]
    Question agreed to.

  Business of the House
  7.9 pm
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. Paddy Tipping): I beg to move,
  That, at this day's sitting and the sittings on Thursday 23rd and Monday 27th November, the Speaker shall not adjourn the House until any Message from the Lords shall be received.
  I am pleased to move this motion, which is extremely narrow in scope, stating that the House should not adjourn today, tomorrow or on Monday until any messages are received from the other place. The motion is perfectly standard. Many of those who have been Members for some years will have seen similar motions. The motion is in the interests—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman. Will hon. Members who are not staying for this debate please leave quickly and quietly?
  Mr. Tipping: The motion is in the interests of all Members, especially the Opposition, because it will allow us to keep the House open until the messages are received. That will allow any message to be printed in the Order Paper so that Members have an opportunity to understand what they have to discuss. Standing Order No. 78, as many hon. Members will know, gives the House leave to take Lords amendments forthwith, so it is technically possible for any amendment received to be debated at a convenient time.
  Mr. Eric Forth: Can the Minister confirm that it is perfectly possible for Lords messages to be included in the following day's business without the need for such measures and that things could therefore be done in a proper way?
  Mr. Tipping: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman is not implying that the motion is not entirely proper. It is in order and perfectly proper. He knows that there are different ways and procedures in the House, and he has suggested an alternative. The motion will simply allow the messages that come from the Lords to be printed in the Order Paper for the benefit of all Members. We had the example of Members tabling amendments to Lords amendments for the previous debate. The motion will not inconvenience Members. Technically, the House does not sit until the message arrives and we reconvene. There are precedents for the motion, which is in the interests of all Members, especially the Opposition, and will not inconvenience any Member.
  Mr. Douglas Hogg: As I understand it, technically the House could sit, but it will not do so. Surely if that is the case, we could fill the idle hours with many debates that might be of interest to the hon. Gentleman. For example, he might like to discuss the desirability of excluding sugar from the everything but arms initiative. Could we discuss that matter? Perhaps he would confirm whether we could debate a motion on the European rapid reaction force, so that the Government could gauge the opinion of the House in a full debate?

  369
  Will he confirm that if he were so minded, we could have an opportunity to debate such matters while the House awaited messages from the other place?
  Mr. Tipping: The right hon. and learned Gentleman, and many of his hon. Friends, take many opportunities to discuss various issues. I have had the benefit of listening to some of his comments today. I acknowledge the point that he makes: hon. Members wish to discuss many matters. The motion will provide a framework for the orderly discussion of Lords amendments.
  7.14 pm
  Mr. Dominic Grieve: We always know when the Government have got themselves into difficulty—it is the moment when they send in the Minister, who, with his normal courtesy, kindness and politeness, comes along and spreads a bit of emollient to try to disguise the fact that their legislative programme is in the most terrible mess, with appalling consequences for the way in which the House conducts its scrutiny.
  The state opening of the new Session is projected for Wednesday week, but important legislation still has to return to the House from the other place, and, as the Minister has admitted, the purpose of the motion is to facilitate that process. The Opposition might be happy to facilitate that process if the only consequence were that the House would have adequate time to scrutinise the legislation. However, as was made clear yesterday with the Police (Northern Ireland) Bill, when the House waits for Bills to return and considers them—as the motion invites it to do—what happens is a complete charade.
  We recently heard that, on the Government's initiative, the House is planning to timetable legislation. Would that it were true that we had an adequate timetable. Yesterday there was inadequate time for debate. The debate was subject to a guillotine, which was scandalous. At the end, dozens of amendments remained to be considered, and the House could not even express its view properly on some of the amendments that had been debated. The motion seems likely to facilitate the repetition of exactly the same thing in the coming days.
  The Minister knows very well that legislation on the scale of the Countryside and Rights of Way Bill and the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill—a measure that is engraved on his heart and on mine, and which is being considered at this very moment in another place—will require a great deal of scrutiny. We are told that the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill is likely to return with hundreds of Government amendments.
  The motion is designed, as I understand it, to facilitate the rapid consideration of such messages from the Lords and, if legislation is sent back after being considered by the House, further messages from the Lords. Haste makes for bad scrutiny, and the Minister knows it. In those circumstances, it would be much better if the Government admitted that, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) said, time is required
  370
  for messages to be considered in the perfectly ordinary course of events, to allow the House to respond to those messages and consider legislation properly.
  Mr. Tipping rose—
  Mr. Grieve: If the state opening of Parliament has to be delayed, so be it. We are making a mockery of the trust placed in us by the electorate to scrutinise legislation properly.
  A moment ago, I detected that the Minister wanted to intervene. If he wants to do so, I shall be happy to give way.
  Mr. Hogg rose—
  Mr. Grieve: I am happy to give way to my right hon. and learned Friend.
  Mr. Hogg: Does my hon. Friend agree that we are being asked to waste a great deal of time because sittings will be suspended while we wait at the convenience of their lordships? I do not particularly mind doing that, but I do mind wasting time. Can he confirm that it would be perfectly possible for the Leader of the House to table a business motion on Monday whereby, during the sittings that would otherwise be suspended, we could debate important matters, such as the European rapid reaction force and the EBA sugar initiative, and a few others that I have in mind?.
  Mr. David Davis: French beef.
  Mr. Hogg: Indeed, French beef. That would be a much more productive use of our time than simply suspending the sitting.
  Mr. Grieve: I agree with my right hon. and learned Friend. We could make productive use of the time. Alternatively, if the Government do not want to do that, they could cease to proceed with the motion and allow business to be conducted in an orderly and sensible manner; then we could do what some Labour MPs apparently enjoy doing, such as going off to their constituencies. Instead of being on permanent standby, the House should not sit on days when it is not necessary. When it does, it reminds me of those buttons on our television sets that we are told to switch off because they consume so much energy.
  Mr. Forth: Following the intervention of our right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), does my hon. Friend accept that one of the other advantages of the procedure that he described would be that the debates would take place here in the Chamber, instead of being shunted off to that pathetic sideshow known as Westminster Hall? We could turn the terms of the motion into something positive for the House of Commons.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman has gone way outside the terms of this narrow motion, and I advise his hon. Friend not to respond.
  Mr. Grieve: My right hon. Friend is a man of creative ingenuity, and the Minister should definitely take his

  371
  words on board. He makes a lot of sense when he talks about the House proceeding with sensible scrutiny. However, I shall return to the narrow wording of the motion.
  I shall not labour the points that I want to make; I simply say to the Minister that he is asking the House to place itself in a state of permanent standby. Perhaps the House would be prepared to do that if we had any confidence that at the end of the day we would have a proper opportunity to debate serious business when it became available. The reality of the past two weeks has been other. Yesterday highlighted a woeful deficiency in the legislative process, and everything suggests that in the coming week we will be subjected to a similar situation. The country deserves better.
  7.22 pm
  Mr. Douglas Hogg: When I see such a motion, I rise to speak with some apprehension. I suspect that it is a device for getting business hastily through the House instead of proceeding in the orderly way that my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) suggested. I would be much more willing to support the business motion if the Government were to give an undertaking that messages received from the other place to be discussed in this House would be the subject of proper and full discussion, rather than being timetabled.
  If the Government were to give us an undertaking to that effect, I would be a great deal more sympathetic to what the deputy Leader of the House proposes. A number of important Bills are being dealt with in the other place, and they will no doubt be the subject of messages. One is the Countryside and Rights of Way Bill, and another may be the Disqualifications Bill—I mention just two. It is likely that the House will want to discuss fully and properly the many scores, if not hundreds, of amendments that will appear from the other place.
  As I understand it, this procedure will enable the Government to rush through discussion of that legislation. As this will be the first time that this House collectively has had an opportunity to discuss the amendments that will the subject of the messages, we need to have proper time for reflection. If hon. Members agree with me on that point—being true democrats, Conservative Members will do so—they should have no truck with this business motion.
  Mr. Forth: Given the amount of hard work that their Lordships are doing, can my right hon. and learned Friend envisage circumstances in which a message may come from the other place very late in the evening and be placed on the Order Paper under this dubious procedure? How would Members of this House be able to table amendments to those messages in those circumstances? Is there not an element of subterfuge?
  Mr. Hogg: That is exactly what I was worried about. If a message comes late one night and the Government have it in mind that we should debate the matter the following day, there will be no opportunity to consult, or be consulted by, the relevant interest groups. Consequently, the amendments that may have been appropriate will not be tabled. That is the inevitable
  372
  consequence of accepting this business motion, whereas if we do not accept it, we will gain a day or two and have proper time for reflection.
  Mr. David Maclean: My point was similar to that made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth). I would go further and say that a message may be received from the Lords very late on Wednesday night as they work into Thursday morning. As this House meets at 11.30 on a Thursday morning, there would be even less time for hon. Members to consider business received from the Lords at 3 o'clock in the morning.
  Mr. Hogg: My right hon. Friend is entirely right. I do not want to attribute an evil motive to those on the Government Front Bench, but if I were in the Government Whips Office—thank God I shall never be a Government Whip again—I would at least reflect on the possibility of so arranging the timing of a message that it achieved the consequence, and had the effect, that my right hon. Friend describes.
  Mr. John Bercow: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the problem of a potential shortage of time is especially acute in the context of the Freedom of Information Bill? I feel sure that it was only an error of omission that prevented him from mentioning that legislation in his list of dubious and ill-fated Bills.
  Mr. Hogg: It was actually because I do not like trying your patience, Mr. Deputy Speaker; I know that your patience is easily tried. My hon. Friend is wholly correct. The Freedom of Information Bill may well be one of the beneficiaries—from the Government's perspective—of this business motion.
  We want to make it absolutely plain to the House that the purpose of the business motion, or at least its consequence, is to enable the Government to push through business rapidly, without hon. Members having a proper opportunity to consult the interest groups that may be affected, or even to discuss among ourselves what our policy and attitudes should be. On that basis, it is objectionable.
  I think that the motion is objectionable and that is the end of the matter—but one or two things could make it marginally less objectionable. One of them I have already alluded to briefly, and that is an undertaking from the Government. They should undertake to the House to allow us to sit late the succeeding day—the day of the substantive debate—until 2 o'clock in the morning, for example, which was perfectly usual when I first came to the House, and did not cause undue inconvenience. One merely went away if one did not want to be here: we were independent Members in those days. That would be one way of addressing the matter.
  The other way would be to give a formal undertaking to the House that there will not be any timetabling, and that we will be able to debate matters fully. Speaking for myself, if the Government gave an undertaking to that effect, I would be more minded to accept the business motion than I would otherwise be.
  Mr. David Davis: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am persuaded by my right hon. and learned

  373
  Friend's arguments—with one exception. I do not think that the House should be put in the position of having to take the Minister's word on a matter of such serious consequence and interest. We have had no opportunity to amend this motion because of the timing of it.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order for the Chair. It is a point of argument.
  Mr. Hogg: I was suggesting that we could get an undertaking from the Government. The hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Tipping) is a perfectly respectable Minister. I would take an undertaking from him, and would regard it as copper-bottomed, so I am looking forward to receiving such an undertaking.
  The Minister could also make the proposal more agreeable to us in another way—by filling those empty hours. We on the Conservative Benches are a hardworking lot. Considering our relatively small number, it is noteworthy how the Conservative Benches have been more densely populated than the Labour Benches this evening—except, of course, when the Division comes, when, not having listened to the debate, all these characters come out of all the crannies of this place and do what their Whips tell them. That is one of the reasons why the House is held in such low esteem in the country. However, if we were able to fill the idle hours contemplated by Ministers with useful discussion, we might be more willing to pass the business motion.
  I have taken a little advice on the matter because I do not like to talk absolute tommy-rot on these occasions. [Interruption.] My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) laughs. I assure him that that is true. It would be possible for the Leader of the House, tomorrow, say, to indicate a willingness to table a business motion to enable us to discuss on the Floor of the House substantive issues on a timed basis—say an hour, an hour and a half or whatever—to fill the time when the House would otherwise stand suspended.
  I suppose that it would have to be a term of the business motion that we would resume the substantive business within a stated time of receiving a message, but speaking for myself, I am willing to help the Leader of the House with the drafting. I wish to be constructive, and I know that she does not think very constructively. A little help from Conservative Members might be of value.
  I suggest to the deputy Leader of the House, who is just about to go to sleep—I would not dare wake him up—that there are a number of subjects on which he could give an undertaking. I saw him in Westminster Hall yesterday; it was the first time that I had ever been into Westminster Hall for the purpose of making a speech. It was an interesting occasion. We discussed sugar. I saw that he was deeply concerned about the sugar regime, and the fact that the everything but arms initiative, which is supported by the Government, will ruin sugar producers.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is going way beyond the terms of the motion. I have already heard him advert to that particular matter, and I do not wish to hear him advert to it again.
  Mr. Hogg: Of course I accept your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I would not dream of doing otherwise, but my
  374
  point is—I am sure that you were the first to grasp it—that if the business motion is passed, there will be periods when although the House is suspended, hon. Members are present.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have indeed heard that argument, because the right hon. and learned Gentleman first placed it before me during an intervention. He cannot go on repeating it.
  Mr. Hogg: It would be shameful of me even to think of going on repeating it, but there are one or two illustrations that might prove attractive to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The arguments that are advanced have nothing to do with me. There is no point of order involved for the occupant of the Chair. I have to ensure that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is not in breach of Standing Orders about repetition, or going outside the terms of the motion.
  Mr. Hogg: I was not raising a point of order, but I was conscious that all observations on the Floor of the House are directed to the Chair and through the Chair. That is all I was doing—I was speaking to the Chamber through you.
  Mr. Maclean: I would not wish my right hon. and learned Friend in any circumstances to disobey the instructions of the occupant of the Chair. Of course, he must not go down the route of repetition, as I have sometimes—but I have not fully understood his argument. Is it possible for him to state his argument in such terms that it is not repetitive, but we can fully grasp the concept?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is wholly mischievous.
  Mr. Hogg: I would never accuse my right hon. Friend of being mischievous. Sometimes, he has not followed the argument as clearly as I would wish—but mischievous? Surely not.
  The point that I was seeking to make is that the House wants to make constructive use of the time. We are being asked to sit on our backsides doing nothing, probably in the bar, or in our offices. That is not a sensible use of our time when we have the possibility of discussing substantive business.
  I will not mention sugar again, because you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, have told me not to. I imagine that if I mention the European rapid reaction force, you will tell me that I should not develop that argument either, save to say that today, the Government made a far-reaching policy statement, which has not received the authority of the House; the House has not been asked to vote its approval of the proposal. We could do that on Monday or Tuesday if the Government let us.
  One can take advantage of otherwise empty hours to discuss substantive business. That is the proper way to make progress, so let us have an undertaking that there will be no guillotines. Let the House consider, and perhaps vote on, whether we should have the business motion at all, but the motion would be more acceptable to us if we were going to use our hours profitably, and not in the idle way that Ministers want us to use them.
  7.35 pm
  Mr. Eric Forth: The trouble with this type of motion and the way in which the Minister has presented it is that we know no more now than we did before about why the Government feel compelled to bring it before the House. He said in his beguiling and rather charming way that it is narrow and standard. That is ministerial code for, "I hope that the debate will not go on for long or be discussed much. I wish that it were all over very quickly." I bet he does, because lying behind this innocent-looking motion is quite a lot of history.
  You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will judge how far it is appropriate to go into the history. Suffice to say that the reason why the Government have felt compelled to come forward with a procedural motion at this stage—it is the only conclusion that I can draw, subject to the Minister correcting me—is because there is a substantial amount of business in another place, which will come here in the form of messages, and which, therefore, the Government must deal with in an unusual and extraordinary way. That is the key to all this.
  If the Government were in full control of their legislative programme—if they had managed that programme properly—those matters could come to the House in the normal way and be dealt with properly, but what underlies the motion is the fact that the Government know that that cannot be the case, or at least they think that it cannot be the case. They are placing the House under an artificial and unnecessary time constraint and, therefore, must bring forward this extraordinary measure.
  For the moment, I will leave to one side the fact that it is odd that the Government have gone to enormous lengths to seek to change the Standing Orders of the House, so that the House cannot vote after 10 o'clock at night, yet, in the business motion, it appears that the Government are prepared to ask for the House not to be adjourned until messages are received without time limit. That contradicts the proposal to which they attached such great importance just two weeks ago.
  Mr. Hogg: Surely the following argument follows on from that of my right hon. Friend. The Government have often said that it is bad government and makes for bad law to debate matters after 10 o'clock—I do not happen to believe that; none the less, that is the Government's position—but the effect of the business motion is to oblige us to make law after 10 o'clock.
  Mr. Forth: Indeed. As we know, messages are part of the law-making process—an integral part. I want to add to my right hon. and learned Friend's references the business that we know will come to this House in the form of messages from another place. The Countryside and Rights of Way Bill will come in our direction, as will the Freedom of Information Bill and the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill. We can be certain of all those—they must be the subject of at least some of the messages referred to in the motion.
  What is not so certain is whether the Disqualifications Bill will be the subject of one of the messages. It is a Bill of which I know a little because in February this year I had the honour to participate in a debate on it. It took the House of Commons quite some time to deliberate on it. Whether it would be proper for that Bill, on which we
  376
  deliberated, from memory, for about 27 hours, to come back in the form of a message in that peremptory way and to be rushed through is another matter. Perhaps the Bill will be one to come in this direction.
  Whether the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Bill would be subject to a message is also a matter for some speculation, but I need not speculate because you, Mr. Speaker, and I know that the Countryside and Rights of Way Bill, the Freedom of Information Bill and the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill are all in another place. They are an essential part of the Government's programme, and therefore—I think I am right, but the Minister may correct me—they must be involved in one of the messages that are to come from another place. Of that much I think we can be certain.
  Here, however, the matter becomes more difficult. Indeed, if the Government are telling us that they think it proper for those substantial Bills, along with hundreds of amendments from another place, to be dealt with in the way suggested in the motion, the matter becomes improper. I use the word deliberately: I mean "improper" in terms of the legislative and deliberative process.
  It would appear that the Government want to truncate, or compress, the time scale that would normally be available to the House in order to rush the legislative process. That must be entirely wrong, although I can see why they would want to do it. Their legislative programme is in a mess: they have far too much legislation, and we know that hundreds of amendments—mostly Government amendments—have been required in relation to those important Bills.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman is now repeating his own argument. There cannot be endless repetition of the same point.
  Mr. Forth: Indeed, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  I have explained why I used the word "improper"; but the position gets worse. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) pointed out, what we do not know from the motion is how it will work in practice. The motion simply states that
  the Speaker shall not adjourn the House until any Message …shall be received.
  It does not tell us what constraints that may or may not place on the normal conduct of the House's business. It does not tell us whether a gap or hiatus would appear between the end of normal business and the House's not adjourning. Does this mean, for example, that Members will have to continue to be present—or can they continue to be present? Does anything lie procedurally beyond the normal finishing of business and waiting for the message?
  Mr. Hogg: My right hon. Friend has drawn our attention to the text of the motion. He will know that amendments can be tabled at any time before the Adjournment of the House, but not thereafter. According to the motion, it would be possible for the House to adjourn immediately after a message had been received. Consequently, there would be no gap between the receipt of the message and the Adjournment of the House. If that

  377
  were the case, no amendments could be tabled that night, and the business, unamended, could be discussed the following morning.
  Mr. Forth: Indeed. That is probably one of the most sinister aspects of this piece of Government deviousness and jiggery-pokery.
  In the normal course of events, the legislative process requires that when a message comes to us from another place, we can do what we did earlier this evening. We should be able to deliberate on the message, and then table amendments that may or may not be selected and subsequently debated. But, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham pointed out, none of that may be possible if the mechanism proposed in the motion is approved this evening.
  We could find ourselves in an invidious position. No doubt the Government would be very comfortable with it: no doubt it is exactly what they want. I suggest that now they have got themselves into such a mess, and with messages coming from the other place in such a way, the last thing they want is for Members—their own, for all I know: not necessarily Opposition Members—to look at what is arriving here, and to decide whether they want to table amendments.
  Mr. Bercow: If we are to know the extent of the constraints that we may face, we surely need to know the extent of the legislative consideration that the Government envisage. Given the mauling received by the Disqualifications Bill in another place, is not a Lords message in relation to that a real possibility? In that event, would not extensive consideration be required?
  Mr. Forth: That must be so, although my judgment is different from my hon. Friend's: I suspect that the Disqualifications Bill might not come in our direction. We do not know, however, because the Minister has not shared any of these governmental secrets with us.
  I am keeping an eye on the Government's Deputy Chief Whip, who seems to be haranguing you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I would not want to interrupt, but Mr. Speaker recently deprecated the practice of Members' going to the side of the Chair and haranguing its occupants. I know that you would not stand for any of that, Mr. Deputy Speaker—especially from the Deputy Chief Whip.
  Another question arises, which the motion does not begin to answer: no time limit is placed on the mechanism that it proposes. The motion suggests—indeed, mandates—that
  the Speaker shall not adjourn the House until any Message from the Lords shall be received.
  We know how late their Lordships have had to sit recently, given the mess that the Government's legislative programme is in and the excess of legislation and Government amendments in another place. It is fairly simple to deduce, in view of recent experience, that the House of Commons may be required not to adjourn until some very late hour. That raises another question: is it incumbent on Members to be available until that hour, or would the Government want us all to go home so that
  378
  some sinister process could take place late at night when we were all elsewhere, and not present to try to slip in an amendment even if we were able to do so?
  It gets worse. It is not just that we might not be able to do that for reasons of timing. Would you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, or the Government encourage Members to stay on the premises and to be alert to what was happening, or would we be told that we should all go home? That would leave us in a very odd position, which the public would not understand.
  Will the cameras be switched on, showing the Chamber? How will the process work? How will the messages come? Will one of the Whips, with his wand, present the messages to an empty House, and will it be apparent by that stage that all Members have long since gone home? These are important questions, because they bear on whether Members will have a realistic opportunity to table amendments to the messages.
  Mr. Hogg: My right hon. Friend has raised a serious point. It is desirable for Members to be available, in order to know what the messages are. Does that not reinforce the value of my suggestion that we should fill the idle hours, as it were, with substantive debates, so that Members are present, interested in the business of the House and ready to receive the messages because they will have something to discuss?
  Mr. Forth: Indeed—and that is why my right hon. and learned Friend's suggestion is so helpful. It answers the point so often spuriously made by Labour Members that we do not have enough time to debate all the matters that we want to debate. That is one of the completely invalid reasons that the Government gave for the nonsense of Westminster Hall. Hot on the heels of the endorsement of Westminster Hall that we gave so misguidedly the other day, an opportunity has arisen for the first time. Were we to avail ourselves of that opportunity, we would have extra time for debate.
  Having taken advice, my right hon. and learned Friend pointed out that it was well within the Government's power to table a business motion to give effect to that. We have heard nothing from the Minister, but I hope that he will rise to the challenge later.
  Mr. Maclean: My right hon. Friend is clearly quite knowledgeable about these matters. Can he help me out?
  What will be the status of the Adjournment debate? Will it be taken first, and will the House then be in suspended animation until a message is received before adjourning? Or will the House be suspended, receive a message, decide to adjourn, and then have the Adjournment debate? In the latter event, we might have half an hour in which to table amendments.
  Mr. Forth: That is a possibility, but I do not want to give my right hon. Friend advice off the cuff, and I am sure that he would not wish me to guess on my feet—which, of course, I would not dream of doing. I will, however, allow myself to go so far as to speculate—unless you advise me otherwise, Mr. Deputy Speaker—that the motion raises an intriguing possibility. If normal business has been concluded, whether under a guillotine or not, and if the House does not adjourn until a message comes, it

  379
  might be possible for the Adjournment debate to proceed throughout the period between the completion of normal business and the arrival of the message.
  Perhaps such a possibility would help my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham. If we cannot debate a Government business motion, as he suggested, perhaps there could be, in the usual manner, albeit only on one pre-determined subject, a much lengthier Adjournment debate between the end of business and receipt of the message.
  Mr. Hogg: Perhaps the Government could propose a general subject for debate on the Adjournment, rather like the old Consolidated Fund Bill or Christmas Adjournment debates. Such a debate would enable hon. Members, during otherwise wasted hours, to speak on any subject that they may have in mind.
  Mr. Forth: My right hon. and learned Friend makes a typically helpful suggestion—which, procedurally, would probably be do-able. However, if it were not do-able and the Government were not to accept it, and were we to be misguided enough to give the Government the carte blanche suggested in the motion—I hope that we do not; I shall certainly oppose it unless the Minister gives me much better reasons than he has so far—it may be that all we can salvage out of this episode is a series of intriguingly prolonged Adjournment debates on subjects that had already been accepted for debate in the usual way.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have already heard sufficient argument on that particular subject.
  Mr. Forth: I was contemplating concluding my remarks, Mr. Deputy Speaker; you may have hurried me a little along the way.
  Mr. Maclean: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Forth: I hope that my right hon. Friend is not trying to prolong my remarks.
  Mr. Maclean: Certainly not, as I hope that I might be fortunate enough to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in due course.
  Earlier, my right hon. Friend commented briefly on the proposal that there would be no voting after 10 o'clock and said that he would deal with that proposal later. As far as I can recall, he has failed to do that. I thought that it was a valid point that was relevant to the motion.
  Mr. Forth: Because I am a generous chap, I shall voluntarily leave my right hon. Friend to elaborate on that point. Although I have oodles more material, I sense that I might be testing the patience of the House—[HoN. MEMBERS: "No."] Frankly, if looks could kill, the type of look that I am getting from the Government Deputy Chief Whip would have rendered me a corpse long ago. I do not think that I should push my luck too far. I certainly would not comment on your demeanour, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as that would be way out of order.
  I want just to make one final point. If the Minister were to answer only one question from me, I hope that it would be this. Can he undertake that if the House agrees to the
  380
  motion today, he will guarantee that there is proper opportunity for hon. Members to table amendments to the content of messages from another place? Will he also spell that out to the House in advance, so that we all know how that can be done and we can be reassured that no subterfuge is involved? That is my main request to the Minister. However, unless he does a lot better than he has so far to persuade me, I really feel that I cannot support the resolution.
  Several hon.Members rose—
  Mr. Hogg: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Would it be possible for you to raise with the Speaker the possibility of tabling manuscript amendments if a message is received very late, at a time when most hon. Members are not available?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is a hypothetical question and not one that I can answer now.
  Mr. Keith Bradley (Treasurer of Her Majesty's Household): rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
  Question put, That the Question be now put:—
  The House proceeded to a Division.
  Mr. Maclean: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. What is the precedent for accepting a closure motion when the main motion has been debated for only 45 minutes and only about four more hon. Members—two of whom are privy councillors—wish to speak? As only four more hon. Members wish to speak, the debate could not have continued for much longer.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman would be aware, if he knows the Standing Orders, that closure is wholly a matter for the discretion of the occupant of the Chair.
  Mr. Maclean: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Of course I accept that a closure motion is entirely at the discretion of the occupant of the Chair. I was asking whether it is possible for you to elaborate on the circumstances and precedent that have led you to conclude that it was a suitable instance in which to exercise your discretion after 45 minutes.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that the right hon. Gentleman knows better than that. The rulings of the occupant of the Chair should not be questioned in that manner.
  The House having divided: Ayes 257, Noes 21.

  Division No. 352]

  [7.54 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Barnes, Harry

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Barron, Kevin

  Ainger, Nick

  Bayley, Hugh

  Alexander, Douglas

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Allen, Graham

  Beth, Rt Hon A J

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Bell, Marlin (Tatton)

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Benton, Joe

  Ashton, Joe

  Best, Harold

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Betts, Clive

  Banks, Tony

  Blackman, Liz

  381

  Blizzard, Bob

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Grocott, Bruce

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Hancock, Mike

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Hanson, David

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Harvey, Nick

  Burden, Richard

  Healey, John

  Burgon, Colin

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Burstow, Paul

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Cable, Dr Vincent

  Heppell, John

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Hesford, Stephen

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Hewitt, Ms Patricia

  Cann, Jamie

  Hill, Keith

  Caplin, Ivor

  Hinchliffe, David

  Casale, Roger

  Hood, Jimmy

  Caton, Martin

  Hope, Phil

  Cawsey, Ian

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Chidgey, David

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Clapham, Michael

  Hurst, Alan

  Clark, Dr Lynda

  Hutton, John

  (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  lddon, Dr Brian

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Illsley, Eric

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Jamieson, David

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Clwyd, Ann

  Johnson, Miss Melanie

  Coaker, Vernon

  (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

  Cohen, Harry

  Jones, Ms Jenny

  Coleman, Iain

  (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Connarty, Michael

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Cooper, Yvette

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Corbett, Robin

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Corston, Jean

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Cousins, Jim

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Cox, Tom

  Keetch, Paul

  Cranston, Ross

  Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles

  Crausby, David

  (Ross Skye & Inverness W)

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Khabra, Piara S

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Kidney, David

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Darvill, Keith

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Kingham, Ms Tess

  Davidson, Ian

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Lepper, David

  Denham, John

  Leslie, Christopher

  Dismore, Andrew

  Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Livsey, Richard

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Edwards, Huw

  Lock, David

  Efford, Clive

  Love, Andrew

  Ennis, Jeff

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Flint, Caroline

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  Flynn, Paul

  Macdonald, Calum

  Follett, Barbara

  McDonnell, John

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  McNamara, Kevin

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  McNulty, Tony

  Galloway, George

  MacShane, Denis

  Gardiner, Barry

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Gerrard, Neil

  McNulty, Tony

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  McWilliam, John

  Gidley, Sandra

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Mallaber, Judy

  Godsiff, Roger

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Goggins, Paul

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Martlew, Eric

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  Maxton,John

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Michael, Rt Hon Alun

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Michie, Bill (Shetld Heeley)

  382

  Moffatt, Laura

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Morley, Elliot

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  (B'ham Yardley)

  Soley, Clive

  Mountford, Kali

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Mudie, George

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Mullin, Chris

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Norris, Dan

  Stunell, Andrew

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann

  Olner, Bill

  (Dewsbury)

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Pearson, Ian

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Plaskitt, James

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Pollard, Kerry

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Pond, Chris

  Timms, Stephen

  Pope, Greg

  Tipping, Paddy

  Pound, Stephen

  Touhig, Don

  Powell, Sir Raymond

  Trickett, Jon

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Truswell, Paul

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  Rapson, Syd

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

  Tyler, Paul

  Rendel, David

  Vis, Dr Rudi

  Rogers, Allan

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

  Wareing, Robert N

  Rooney, Terry

  Welsh, Andrew

  Rowlands, Ted

  White, Brian

  Ruane, Chris

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan

  Ruddock, Joan

  (Swansea W)

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  Winnick, David

  Salter, Martin

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Sanders, Adrian

  Woodward, Shaun

  Sawford, Phil

  Worthington, Tony

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Wyatt, Derek

  Sheerman, Barry

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Skinner, Dennis

  Mr. Jim Dowd and

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Mr. Mike Hall.

  NOES

  Bercow, John

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Randall, John

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  Ruffley, David

  Fallon, Michael

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  Gale, Roger

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Grieve, Dominic

  Swayne, Desmond

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Lidington, David

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Loughton, Tim

  Mr. Douglas Hogg and

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Mr. Eric Forth.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Question put accordingly:—
  The House divided:— Ayes 260, Noes 17.

  Division No. 353]

  [8.7 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Allen, Graham

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Ainger, Nick

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Alexander, Douglas

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hillary

  383

  Ashton, Joe

  Flynn, Paul

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Follett, Barbara

  Banks, Tony

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Barnes, Harry

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Barron, Kevin

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Galloway, George

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Gardiner, Barry

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Gerrard, Neil

  Bell, Martin (Tatton)

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Benton, Joe

  Gidley, Sandra

  Best, Harold

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Betts, Clive

  Godsiff, Roger

  Blackman, Liz

  Goggins, Paul

  Blizzard, Bob

  Goldon, Mrs Llin

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Burden, Richard

  Hancock, Mike

  Burgon, Colin

  Hanson, David

  Burnett, John

  Harvey, Nick

  Burstow, Paul

  Healey, John

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Health, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Cable, Dr Vincent

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Heppell, John

  Caplin, Ivor

  Hesford, Stephen

  Casale, Roger

  Hewitt, Ms Patricia

  Caton, Martin

  Hill, Keith

  Cawsey, Ian

  Hinchliffe, David

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Hood, Jimmy

  Chaytor, David

  Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

  Chidgey, David

  Hope, Phil

  Clapham, Michael

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Clark, Dr Lynda

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Hurst, Alan

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Hutton, John

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Illsley, Eric

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Clwyd, Ann

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Coaker, Vernon

  Johnson, Miss Melanie

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Cohen, Harry

  Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

  Coleman, Iain

  Jones, Ms Jenny

  Colman, Tony

  (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Connarty, Michael

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Cooper, Yvette

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Corbett, Robin

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Corston, Jean

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Cousins, Jim

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Cox, Tom

  Keetch, Paul

  Cranston, Ross

  Kemp, Fraser

  Crausby, David

  Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  (Ross Skye & Inverness W)

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Khabra, Piara S

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Kidney, David

  Darvill, Keith

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Kingham, Ms Tess

  Davidson, Ian

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Lepper, David

  Denham, John

  Leslie, Christopher

  Dismore, Andrew

  Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Livsey, Richard

  Dowd, Jim

  Lloud, Tony (Manchester C)

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Lock, David

  Edwards, Huw

  Love, Andrew

  Efford, Clive

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Ennis, Jeff

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  Flint, Caroline

  Macdonald, Calum

  384

  McDonnell, John

  Salter, Martin

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Sanders, Adrian

  McNamara, Kevin

  Sawford, Phil

  McNulty, Tony

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Mc Walter, Tony

  Singh, Marsha

  McWilliam, John

  Skinner, Dennis

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Mallaber, Judy

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Martlew, Eric

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Maxton, John

  Soley, Clive

  Michael, Rt Hon Alun

  Spellar, John

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Moffatt, Laura

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Morley, Elliot

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  (B'ham Yardley)

  Stunell, Andrew

  Mountford, Kali

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Mudie, George

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann

  Mullin, Chris

  (Dewsbury)

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Norris, Dan

  Thomas, simon (Ceredigion)

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Timms, Stephen

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Tipping, Paddy

  Olner, Bill

  Touhig, Don

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Trickett, Jon

  Pearson, Ian

  Truswell, Paul

  Pickthall, Colin

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Plaskitt, James

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  Pollard, Kerry

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Pond, Chris

  Tyler, Paul

  Pope, Greg

  Vis, Dr Rudi

  Pound, Stephen

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Powell, Sir Raymond

  Wareing, Robert N

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Welsh, Andrew

  Primarolo, Dawn

  White, Brian

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan

  Rapson, Syd

  (Swansea W)

  Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Rendel, David

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Rogers, Allan

  Winnick, David

  Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Rooney, Terry

  Woodward, Shaun

  Rowlands, Ted

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Ruane, Chris

  Wyatt, Derek

  Ruddock, Joan

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Mr. Kevin Hughes and

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  Mr. David Jamieson.

  NOES

  Bercow, John

  Mc Loughlin, Patrick

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Randall, John

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  Day, Stephen

  Swayne, Desmond

  Grieve, Dominic

  Taylor, John M Solihull)

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Lidington, David

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Mr. Gerald Howarth and

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Mr. Eric Forth.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That, at this day's sitting and the sittings on Thursday 23rd and Monday 27th November, the Speaker shall not adjourn the House until any Message from the Lords shall be received.—[Mr. Keith Bradley.]

  Coal Operating Aid Scheme
  8.19 pm
  The Minister for Energy and Competitiveness in Europe (Mrs. Helen Liddell): I beg to move,
  That this House authorises the Secretary of State to pay, or undertake to pay, by way of financial assistance under section 8 of the Industrial Development Act 1982, and in respect of coal mining qualifying for aid under the UK Coal Operating Aid Scheme, sums exceeding £10 million for each of Hatfield Coal Company Ltd, Mining (Scotland) Limited, and RJB Mining plc.
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Sylvia Heal): It is incumbent on me to remind the House that Mr. Speaker has imposed a time limit of 10 minutes on speeches by Back Benchers.
  Mrs. Liddell: The Government also anticipate paying sums of less than £10 million to a number of other applicants for aid.
  On 17 April, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry made a statement to the House on energy policy, in which he announced the intention to lift the stricter gas consents policy, the forthcoming introduction of new electricity trading arrangements and plans to provide temporary aid to the coal industry to enable it to overcome short-term difficulties in the period of transition.
  In July, I announced that the Government had formally applied to the European Commission for its approval of the UK coal operating aid scheme. The notification followed extensive consultation with coal producers and purchasers to ensure that the scheme we proposed met the Government's objectives as spelt out by my right hon. Friend on 17 April, and that it complied with European regulations.
  Mr. Bill O'Brien: May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention the promise made in May by the Prime Minister in response to my question to him£that aid from the coal operating scheme could be used for cleaner coal technology? Will my right hon. Friend include such technology in her programme, so that we can have some assurances about the continuation of mining?
  Mrs. Liddell: As I progress through my opening remarks, my hon. Friend will learn that our ability to pay aid is constrained by fairly concrete rules and that cleaner coal technology is not included. However, my Department funds research into cleaner coal technology and is anxious to see the maximum uptake of schemes that promote it.
  Last week, we were pleased to announce that the European Commission had approved the coal operating aid scheme.
  Hon. Members are aware that the history of the coal industry has not been a happy one. From 1985 to the early 1990s, the coal industry suffered serious decline, with employment falling from 270,000 people to fewer than 20,000. That had a devastating impact on workers, their families and the communities in which they lived. The Government put in place a major regeneration programme for the coalfield areas. In December 1998, my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister announced that, over three years, about £354 million would be invested in
  386
  coalfield regeneration. That was in addition to the amount of more than £1 billion devoted each year to the regeneration of local authority areas containing coalfields.
  However, the recent history of the coal industry is by no means all gloom. The industry has made great strides in improving efficiency and raising productivity. Between 1990 and 1998, output per head increased by an average of 33 per cent. a year—more than for any other energy industry, and far more than the 5 per cent. average for industry as a whole.
  The Government's general policy remains that it is for the coal industry to find its own place in a competitive energy market, and it is in a very good position to do so. Our coal industry is by far the most efficient in Europe. Germany, which has the largest coal industry in the EC, produces about 20 per cent. more coal than we do, but with a labour force that is nearly 10 times greater. The German industry benefits from massive Government subsidies; the French and Spanish coal industries are also subsidised.
  Mr. Ian Bruce: I have a question on precisely that point. We understand that the subsidy to other coal industries in the EU is more than £3 billion; that forces our coal industry, which is so efficient, to be uncompetitive. What have the Government done to refer that unfair subsidy to Germany, France and other countries, so that the British industry can survive?
  Mrs. Liddell: One of the reasons why we are introducing the motion is to address that unfairness to the UK coal industry. Indeed, we have raised the unfair subsidies with the Commission. As I shall point out, we are opposed to the continuation of the EU coal subsidy beyond the end of July 2002, when the European coal and steel community treaty comes to an end.
  Several hon.Members rose—
  Mrs. Liddell: I shall not take many interventions, as several hon. Members want to speak. As a courtesy to them, I shall try to complete my remarks as quickly as possible.
  The Government believe that the UK coal industry has a long-term, viable future, but we recognise that it faces exceptional short-term difficulties at present. Coal prices have been very low; the stricter gas consents policy has been lifted; and the new electricity trading arrangements are due to be implemented. We thus propose to pay aid temporarily, to enable the industry to overcome its temporary difficulties in the transitional period following the lifting of the stricter gas consents policy.
  As the House is aware, the time scale for full implementation of NETA is likely to be spring 2001. Work on preparing the market is far advanced. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry announced last week, he is satisfied that the programme of reforms in the 1998 White Paper is substantially complete; he has therefore lifted the stricter gas consents policy. Thus it remains true that the coal industry needs to adapt to those changes in the market, even though the timing is not quite as the industry anticipated in the spring.
  There has been a significant recovery in coal prices since April, although it is not clear how long that trend can be sustained. However, owing to the advance nature

  387
  of coal contracting, much of the current UK coal production will be sold under contracts whose terms were drawn up some time ago. Many coal producers will thus not benefit from any upturn in coal prices for some time to come, so despite the significant changes that have taken place in the coal market, the subsidy scheme is still necessary.
  The scheme is designed to allow those elements of the industry with a viable future without aid to overcome short-term market problems; to prevent a sudden and sharp decline in the size of the coal industry; and to ensure that mines with a long-term future do not close because of short-term problems.
  It may assist hon. Members if I explain the working of the scheme. Aid may be paid to producers of coal who meet all the criteria laid down in the formal notification to the Commission, as set out in the UK coal operating scheme dated 26 July 2000. Among the criteria are that sales of coal to UK customers must genuinely need help to meet losses; that subsidy must not cause a price that would undercut third-country coal of equivalent quality; that significant progress towards degression of both production cost and operating aid must be demonstrated; and that there must be a realistic prospect of medium-term viability once the aid scheme finishes.
  The aid will be considered in three tranches covering the period from 17 April 2000 to 23 July 2002: tranche 1 will cover this year from 17 April; tranche 2 will cover the whole of next year; and tranche 3 will cover 2002 until 23 July. Payments will be subject to the production unit continuing to meet the cost improvement plans agreed. At the end of each tranche period there will be a reconciliation process, to ensure that units receive what they are entitled to, but not more.
  The scheme will assist only those parts of the industry with a viable future once the subsidy scheme has ended.
  Mr. Joe Ashton: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mrs. Liddell: Will my hon. Friend allow me to proceed? I am anxious that Back Benchers should have an opportunity to contribute.
  I reiterate that this is a temporary measure for temporary difficulties and that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made it clear that it will end in July 2002. In order to obtain aid, a production unit will have to demonstrate a viable plan not only up to the end of the subsidy scheme in July 2002, but for the period beyond 2002 until at least mid-2004. This is not an attempt to prop up a lame-duck industry. Through this measure, we are ensuring the long-term future of competitive mines.

  The scheme will treat all mines in a fair and non-discriminatory way. We will ensure that subsidies paid will not cause the delivered price to undercut third-country coal of equivalent quality. That means that the subsidy cannot be used to undermine the competitiveness of non-subsidised firms. The Government are appointing a specialist panel, the import parity price panel, to ensure that that criterion is satisfied, so there is no question of mines that do not receive subsidy suffering because aid is paid to other mines.
  Any mine that satisfies the criteria will be eligible for aid. This is not just for the big players. No mine is too small to qualify. Opencast and deep mines can apply. The scheme is not discriminatory.
  388
  The scheme as notified to the European Commission had an estimated total cost of £110 million, although the final amount paid will depend on what applications are received, the price of coal and the progress made in decreasing costs. The level of subsidy paid to individual production units will be designed to cover the losses incurred by the production of coal in the subsidy period. It will not cause prices unfairly to undercut those of non-subsidised firms, and no undertaking will receive more than £75 million over the entire lifetime of the subsidy scheme.
  I assure the House that the funds will not be wasted. Funds will be available only to cover losses made in the production of qualifying coal. We have employed expert consultants IMC Consulting to help us to ensure that costs identified are appropriate, reasonable and calculated in accordance with the scheme. They will also advise as to whether the cost reduction plans submitted are realistic, and whether the units are viable beyond the operation of the scheme. What is more, the reconciliation process at the end of each subsidy period will ensure that if actual costs and receipts differ from those that were estimated, balancing payments or repayments will be made. Money will not be wasted.
  We have already received several applications for aid under the first tranche, and further applications will be considered, as long as they are received by the end of this year. Once we are satisfied that the applications satisfy the scheme's criteria—and of course we shall have the advice of our mining consultants and the import parity price panel to help us make that assessment—we shall submit them to the European Commission. We have already done so for Longannet. The Commission then initially has three months to approve the aid, although we are very hopeful of much swifter responses.
  This aid scheme will ensure the long-term future of a profitable mining industry in the United Kingdom. The criteria for aid are such that the money will not be wasted, competition will not be distorted, and unnecessary closures will be avoided. Yes, £110 million is a considerable sum, but I, for one, am in no doubt that this aid is well worth paying to secure the long-term—
  Mr. Ashton: May I say, as a Member who has the headquarters of Budge in his constituency—and two coal mines, which is very unusual these days—that there will be a tremendous vote of thanks to my right hon. Friend for what she has done and the way in which the Government have rescued the industry? However, will she answer a question arising from what she has said? If Budge sold the industry, as has been mooted in the past, would these subsidies still be available, and would they be taken into account and influence the sale price? What would the outcome be?
  Mrs. Liddell: The issue is the long-term profitability of the unit. The assessment is not based on the ownership of the unit; it is based on the unit's potential to become profitable at the end of the subsidy period. Thus, the issue is not ownership, but the pit's production potential.
  The aid scheme is a very useful way forward for us. It will secure the long-term future of Britain's coal industry, and I am sure that it will be welcomed in the many mining communities in this country.
  8.34 pm
  Mr. Nick Gibb: I declare an interest in the Register£in particular, a visit to Denmark this summer to examine windmills, courtesy of National Wind Power, a subsidy of Innogy.
  I listened with interest to the Minister for Energy and Competitiveness in Europe, and I noted especially the passionate way in which she talks about coal mines and mining communities. She undoubtedly speaks on the subject with great conviction. The problem is that she cannot translate that sincerity into practical policies that actually help.
  The current clutch of Department of Trade and Industry Ministers devote much time and energy to crafting the right phrase, but there is a chasm between the words used and the policies delivered. They talk of competition and productivity while piling on to business regulations that are destroying British productivity, which grew by just 1.4 per cent. a year over the last three years compared with 2.4 per cent. under the previous Government and 2.7 per cent. in the United States.
  The motion gives the Government authority to spend £110 million subsidising the United Kingdom coal industry when the German, French and Spanish spend some £3,500 million a year in illegal subsidies to their coal industries£industries that are up to five times less efficient than the British coal industry.
  An effective set of Ministers, who were able to deliver genuine help for the British coal industry, would be working harder and being smarter and tougher in challenging those European subsidies. The lack of ministerial focus on that matter was exemplified in a European Standing Committee, which sat earlier this year, on state aid to the coal industry. That Committee examined a Commission report on state aid. The EU, as the Minister said, permits operating aid only on condition that progress is made towards the economic viability of a particular pit or unit. However, the Commission report, published in September 1999, was damning in its verdict on the German, French and Spanish coal industries. It said:
  With the exception of a certain potential in the United Kingdom, the possibility of a Community coal industry which can compete commercially on the international markets can be definitively ruled out… While state aid can offer an adequate means of coping with economic crises, the state aid given to coal production in the EU has not been capable of providing an answer in economic terms to the structural crisis facing the European coal industry…The strategy of lowering production costs through the use of more advanced technology has proved ineffective.
  In other words, the European Commission is saying that the key condition for operating aid to the European coal industry, with the exception of that in the UK, cannot be fulfilled and thus, unless the aid is closure aid, it is illegal. That is a pretty hard-hitting Commission report, which should have given DTI Ministers ample ammunition to boost any campaign against the £3.5 billion annual subsidies to the European coal industry that are so damaging to the UK coal industry.
  However, the Government's policy changed by not one degree as a result of that report. The subsidies in Europe continue, and the Government, instead of stopping £3.5 billion of subsidies in Europe, are giving £110 million of subsidies to the UK coal industry as though one matched the other. It is a case of all mouth and no action.
  390
  In December 1997, the Minister's predecessor as energy Minister, now Minister of State at the Foreign Office, the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle), told the Select Committee on Trade and Industry that the DTI is "committed" to
  taking action to block the subsidies to German and Spanish coal producers that create barriers to the sale of UK coal
  in the EU. He said that he wanted to "prise open" a market for British coal in Germany. How is that going? Has the present Minister managed to prise open that market? It is clear from her predecessor's statement that the DTI policy back in 1997—no doubt inherited from the previous Government—was one of serious engagement with the EU on subsidies. Only a change of policy—the determination to be seen as good Europeans—has led to punches being pulled. In other words, new Labour policies are inflicting on the coal industry wounds that the motion before us does little more than apply an Elastoplast to.
  One of the worst Labour self-inflicted wounds to the coal industry has come from the Deputy Prime Minister, who raised Britain's CO2 emission reduction target to 20 per cent. of recorded 1990 levels, significantly beyond what was required to fulfil our international obligations. As the Trade and Industry Committee report on the coal industry published in March 1998 said,
  the Kyoto greenhouse gas emission targets, together with the UK's 1997 commitment to a 20% cut in 1990 levels of CO2 by 2010…together represent a more dramatic increase in environmental pressure on coal than anything foreseen in 1993, and on a far tighter time scale.
  On top of that, Magnox power stations are being decommissioned and they represent 8 per cent. of our electricity production. That will add further pressure on the CO2 emission targets and the coal industry. Again, new Labour is inflicting pressure, and the problem cannot be resolved by a £110 million annual payment that expires in 2002.
  The announcement of the United Kingdom coal operating aid scheme that was made by the Secretary of State in April this year was a quid pro quo for his decision to lift the stricter consents policy—the gas moratorium. Further details of the scheme were announced to certain newspapers at the same time as consents for a number of new gas-fired stations were announced. It all seems very politically charged.
  The gas moratorium was a political gesture to Members representing coal mining areas. No one believed the ex post facto justification set out in the 1998 energy White Paper that artificially high electricity prices were somehow encouraging new build gas-fired stations at the expense of coal. No one was going to invest hundreds of millions of pounds on the basis of temporarily higher prices in the full knowledge that reforms to the electricity pool were imminent. The Government have all but admitted that by severing the link between the end of the gas moratorium and the beginning of the new electricity trading arrangements, which have been put back to March next year at the earliest.
  The moratorium has done enormous damage to British industry in the three years of its existence. Electricity prices are higher than they would otherwise have been, with knock-on effects on the competitiveness of energy-intensive industries. Thousands of jobs have been lost in those areas seeking to build the new gas-fired plant and

  391
  millions of tonnes of additional CO2, have been, and will continue to be, pumped into the atmosphere as a consequence. In 1998, Ralph Hodge, the chairman of Enron Europe, said about the gas moratorium:
  Consumers, the economy and the environment will be the losers, with higher-than-needed electricity costs, significant job losses and much higher emissions of greenhouse gases.
  That is the downside of the policy, but what is the upside effect? The Select Committee was clear in its conclusions as to the effect of the gas moratorium in helping the coal industry. The Labour-dominated Committee said:
  We do not believe that this moratorium on section 36 … consents for new power stations will assist the coal industry in the short run … we look to the Government to ensure that the moratorium is lifted as soon as possible.
  In other words, it is another disaster of a policy—downsides for industry and the environment, but no upside for the coal industry.
  That brings me to the final example of the all mouth and no delivery policy for coal that the motion is meant to remedy. I refer to the promotion of clean coal technology, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien). When the right hon. Lady's predecessor was an Opposition spokesman in 1996 he said that Labour would "seriously consider" offering clean coal power part of the £400 million existing subsidy for renewable energy. I wonder how that serious consideration is progressing, or was it just yet another broken Labour promise?
  Page 111 of the Government's trade and industry expenditure plans refers to the Government's new policy on cleaner coal technology. It states:
  As well as contributing to a £60 million portfolio of research and development projects over the next few years, the Government will initiate a series of focused trade missions and seminars.
  That is all very useful—I am sure. However, when that —60 million is scrutinised in a little more detail in the Department of Trade and Industry energy paper 67, it is revealed to be £12 million over three years and is
  forecast to generate projects worth at least £60 million.
  So the big proportion of £400 million promised in 1996 boiled down to £4 million once the Labour party took power. A Government serious about helping the future of the coal industry in these environmentally conscious days would take clean coal technology more seriously than that.
  I have several questions about the motion, which does not specify how much will be paid to the three companies listed in it. I understand that further details need to be worked out, but will the Minister confirm one or two points? Longannet has already been submitted to the European Union, but will she say how much that pit will receive? Will she confirm that Hatfield, Selby, Blenkisopp, Harworth, Maltby, Rossington and Welbeck, the other pits listed on the DTI website, will be submitted to the EU? What steps will the EU undertake and what further permissions will be required?
  We shall not oppose the aid of £110 million, but it is the only positive policy that the Government have had for coal since they came to office. However that aid is tiny compared with the negatives that they have delivered for coal in the same period. There have been no concrete achievements in tackling the £3.5 billion of subsidy in Europe, but there have been an ambitious CO2 emissions target and an almost non-existent commitment to clean
  392
  coal technologies. Labour Members have been sufficiently spun by Ministers to regard the subsidy as manna from heaven. It is not, and I trust that they will not regard it as such.
  8.46 pm
  Mr. Eric Clarke: I declare an interest: I am a paid adviser to Mining (Scotland) Ltd.
  I am an ex-trade union official and was a miner for 26 years, so I realise that the most important aspect of an extractive industry is the development of new face lines. Investment in coal mining is a long-term investment, and the whole industry—not just the industry in Scotland—thanks the Government for this help.
  Development must take place alongside production to achieve continuity of work. Major developments are occasionally necessary and that means that millions of pounds must be spent. For example, in Scotland, the Kincardine area of the Longannet complex cost millions of pounds to develop.
  We need finance for deep mining. Opencast mining in Scotland helps to subsidise some deep-mining activities and it also guarantees production and quality to the power stations. Scottish coal is low sulphur and it is blended with deep-mined coal from England to keep deep mines open and to make that coal acceptable to the generators.
  We are debating not a hole in the ground, but a sophisticated and highly developed industry. It is the pride of the world and investment has been made in the coal industry and the manufacture of mining machinery. One problem in Scotland and elsewhere is faulting in the strata—in other words, faults underground. The forecasting of those faults is important. New sophisticated equipment can make three-dimensional forecasts and determine exactly where they lie. It is possible to design the layout of pits to miss the faults, and the dry-aways and production face lines will be better planned. That is all needed, but very expensive. It adds to overheads, but guarantees success.
  The coal industry can stand on its own. Savings in the balance of payments for other fuels that take its place are second to none. Every time fuel—oil, gas or anything else—is bought on the international market, it must be paid for by American dollars, although it does not necessarily come from that country. Burning coal from indigenous mines saves this country millions of dollars. Oil prices have quadrupled, gas prices have increased by 9p a therm and even the cost of imported coal has increased—as we forecast—so our coal is a good investment. More than that—I do not want to make a plea—it is giving people employment. The spin-off is phenomenal. For every coal miner employed, 10 or more people are employed in ancillary industries.
  The Government are to be congratulated. It gives a crow in the throat, as they say in Scotland, to hear the Conservatives give advice about the coal industry. I spent most of my life in the industry—26 years underground and 12 years as a union official. I do not need to be told what happened to the coal industry in Scotland because it was Mrs. Thatcher and her cohorts who were responsible, and they acted not for economic reasons, but out of political spite. Conservative Members may shake their heads, but it is a fact. I must thank the Government for their help. I hope that it is a start because there is a need for long-term investment. That goes for the industry both south and north of the border.
  8.51 pm
  Dr. Vincent Cable: I shall try to heed the Minister's suggestion that we speak briefly so that hon. Members who represent coal mining constituencies have plenty of opportunity to speak. Indeed, the deputy leader of my party, my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) is one of them. Twickenham is far removed from the coal mining industry—almost as far as Bognor Regis—but I have an interest because this subject is about environmental policy as well as about coal mining.
  In the Government's report on climate change, published a few days ago, I was struck by the extent to which the coal mining industry has carried the burden of CO2 emission reductions. Ministers of this Government and the previous Government have gone around the world saying that Britain has made an enormous contribution to reducing CO2 emissions, but the small print in the report makes it clear that the sacrifice has been made almost entirely by one industry.
  Between 1990 and 1998, the shift to gas from coal reduced carbon emissions by 13 million tonnes compared with a reduction of 2 million tonnes of carbon achieved through the petrol duty escalator, protests against which almost brought the country to a halt. That 13 million tonnes needs to be set in the context of the total net reductions in this country, which were, as far as I can deduce from the figures, about 13.5 million tonnes. Therefore, one relatively small industry has carried almost the whole burden of adjustment in an important environmental shift. In that context, it is only reasonable to expect some of the pain caused by that adjustment to be cushioned.
  The Government's intervention is not propping up a declining industry—I would not support it if it were—but easing a transition within a relatively small remaining part of an industry that has taken an enormous amount of pain so that Britain as a whole can claim substantial environmental improvements in the global context that is discussed in The Hague.
  The hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb) said that he saw support for the coal mining industry as a quid pro quo for the liberalisation of permission for gas-fuelled power stations. I am sure that that is right, but it is an entirely reasonable quid pro quo. It seems right that the coal industry should get some relief from the pain of adjustment, but equally right that the gas permissions should be liberalised. There are powerful reasons why that should happen. Every unit of energy emits 40 per cent. less carbon-using gas and there are the additional benefits of using combined-cycle technology, which reduces carbon emissions even further. There is less sulphur, fewer particulates and additional advantages of being able to build gas-powered plants near the consumer without investment in the transmission system. Such plants can be built much more quickly. We all know the good reasons why gas must develop. So, the policy is a quid pro quo, but an entirely reasonable one in which there is an element of balance.
  In the long term, we face a challenge that neither coal nor gas can answer. The problem will arise around 2005—the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton mentioned it—when the older atomic power stations, which at present make a major contribution to the reduction in carbon dioxide emissions, will have to be
  394
  phased out. If they are replaced by gas-powered plants, emissions for every unit of energy will increase by about 60 per cent., and if by coal-powered ones, by about 80 per cent.—unless new technology is developed.
  So, neither fuel represents an answer to the problem. That is why regarding gas as a panacea is just as dangerous as seeing it as some unacceptable form of fuel. That is why we on the Liberal Democrat Benches have tried to tie the Government to much stronger commitments to renewable energy in 2010. Indeed, it is why we tabled amendments to the Utilities Bill to that effect.
  However, in the narrower context of the motion, and given the pressures that the coal mining industry has had to bear, the proposal is entirely reasonable, and we shall support it.
  8.56 pm
  Mr. Denis Murphy: I also extend my congratulations to my right hon. Friend the Minister for Energy and Competitiveness in Europe on the work and effort that she and her Department have put in to ensure that this Government aid package has been given the green light by the European Union, and that it has been brought to the House for approval so quickly.
  There should be no doubt in anyone's mind, particularly in this House, that if the aid package had not been available, the bulk of Britain's deep-mined industry would now be closed. That would not only have been a tragedy for the United Kingdom, but a great loss to Europe. Given the short-term problems that the industry faces, and hence the need for such aid, Britain's mining operations are much more efficient and productive than anything else Europe has to offer. I hope to demonstrate in the next few minutes how short-term aid could benefit the long-term energy needs of our nation.

  Our first aim must be to retain a balanced energy portfolio—a sensible share of the generating market for gas, nuclear and coal. The events surrounding the fuel crisis of the past few months are a timely reminder and a warning that we close any sector of our home energy production at our peril. The 300 per cent. rise in the cost of oil has sent shock waves around the world, with demonstrations from Strasbourg to Sydney, yet over the past 15 years we in the UK have allowed our greatest source of energy—coal—to go into free-fall and to decline desperately.
  In some traditional mining areas, we have lost completely a skills base that took generations to build. In many cases, sadly, it has been replaced by desperate social and economic problems. We now have one colliery, Ellington, left in what was the great northern coalfield. I spent nearly 30 years of my working life there and I know many of the men who still work there as friends and as comrades.
  I am delighted, therefore, that as a result of the aid package Ellington colliery has been offered a lifeline by RJB Mining, protecting the jobs of several hundred miners who live in an area where unemployment is still a blight and the rate of it has consistently remained at twice the national average for far too many years. I welcome the measures taken by the Government to address the very real problems faced by former coalfield areas, with a variety of initiatives from health to education. I intend to continue my pressure on RJB Mining to extend the life of

  395
  Ellington beyond the four years already agreed, in order to exploit the huge reserves of coal that lie under the North sea.
  I am sure that one influential factor in the argument will be access to markets. In order to ensure our balanced energy portfolio, we desperately need a new generation of clean coal-fired power stations to replace the ageing ones that are presently in use. These replacement stations are the only hope of a real long-term future for Britain's mining industry.
  We are fortunate in the north-east of England that not only do we have an abundance of energy, but we are rich in ideas. The first offshore wind farm in the United Kingdom will shortly be producing electricity just off the coast of my constituency. Newcastle university is a world leader in photovoltaics—the science of turning light into power. The earth balance project in my constituency not only grows and produces organic food, but produces electricity from biomass and wind power.
  The Wansbeck Energy Company is well advanced with the Wansbeck energy project, a partnership between local authorities and the companies Merz and McClellan, and Kennedy and Donkin—two of the most respected names in the field of energy and power. The company intends to build a commercial clean coal-fired power station of approximately 400 MW with the gasification of coal in a combined cycle process.
  Given the demands of Kyoto, environmental issues are at the forefront of the developers proposals. There is confidence that the proposed process will offer significant improvements over existing coal-fired power stations, and that in terms of emissions it will compare favourably with modern gas-fired combined cycle gas turbines.
  Contaminated mine water from abandoned coal mines is a particular problem in many regions of the United Kingdom, particularly in our area. A unique and ingenious approach to resolving the problem involves using the contaminated mine water in the gasification process in that power station. The plant uses significant quantities of water, which needs to be treated to extremely high standards. The opportunity exists, therefore, to use water from former coal mines rather than town water, reducing the threat to water courses and local rivers, and disposing of contaminated water in a responsible way.
  I urge my right hon. Friend the Minister to visit my constituency and see at first-hand our proposals, or, if that is not possible, at the very least to meet a delegation from the constituency in London. At present we have the skills base to build and operate the plant, for recently, as my right hon. Friend knows, National Power announced the closure of what was then the UK's oldest power station, Blyth A and B. The work force therefore still exists.
  In conclusion, the aid package has secured thousands of mining jobs and protected many more thousands of jobs in the equipment manufacturing sector, which secures exports worth more than £200 million a year. Although the aid secures jobs for the short term, the mining industry may need long-term help. I urge the Government to support schemes such as I have outlined. The saying, "Think globally, act locally" has never been more apt, especially as we witness what could be the first major climate change attributed to global warming.
  Although in my view it is not possible to end our use of fossil fuels in heavily developed industrialised nations, we can certainly improve the efficiency and dramatically
  396
  improve the emissions from a new generation of clean coal-fired power stations. I urge the Government to support the development of a clean energy centre in my constituency, where we can generate electricity, manufacture wind turbines and light cells, and develop new technologies to increase the contribution that needs to be made by renewables. We can do that side by side with the fuel that has served the nation well for generations: coal.
  9.4 pm
  Mr. A. J. Beith: Ellington colliery is in my constituency, and it employs quite a number of miners in the constituency and a significant number in the constituencies of the hon. Members for Wansbeck (Mr. Murphy) and for Blyth Valley (Mr. Campbell). All of us who represent those constituencies have been involved in the campaign to secure the operating subsidy. We are glad to see it brought before the House.
  The link between Ellington and the subsidy is rather complex. It rests upon a pledge made by Richard Budge that if an operating subsidy was available to the industry and to the significant part of it that his company owns and operates, the colliery would remain in operation until 2004. We are having a curious discussion because all of us who represent the area are welcoming the subsidy on the basis that Richard Budge's pledge will be honoured. I have no reason to believe that it will not be, but the importance of the pledge must be put on record.
  It was slightly more than a year ago that the closure announcement was made. It was not the first, because Ellington colliery was closed by British Coal in nationalised days and reopened by Budge. About a year ago a closure announcement was made, and I and others discussed the matter with the Minister, who was courteous in listening to us. However, the initial response of Ministers was that it would be impossible to get a legally watertight scheme that would go through the European Commission.
  It took much discussion, considerable pressure and a lot of thinking—we are all grateful that the thinking took place—to take the Government to the point where they said that there was a basis on which there could be an operating subsidy. Members from other coalfield areas played a large part in helping to secure that outcome. I am grateful for the help that Ellington had from other areas in that respect. Of course, other areas will benefit significantly from the operating subsidy.
  The story has been further complicated by the fact that in the meantime there have been all sorts of bids for RJB Mining and its assets. We have the extraordinary Mr. De Stefano, who had suspicious links with Milosevic, and who was taking a rather worrying interest in RJB Mining. Thank goodness that fell through. I believe that he was under arrest at one point as a result of charges being pursued by the British. In fact, he was arrested in Italy. There was the slightly less disreputable but still worrying Renco bid, which again raised anxieties about the fate of Ellington.
  We have the operating subsidy in place and RJB Mining appearing to be continuing as a British-based company. That is a relief to a work force which, having achieved wonders in productivity, have been put through the mill in terms of anxiety about the future of their jobs

  397
  and their industry. If the jobs of Ellington miners are taken out of the area, £10 million a year will be taken out of the area's economy. Given all the local regeneration measures of which we can think, it is extremely difficult to come up with something that would build up to that level, even over a reasonable period, let alone in the short term. The announcement of the subsidy is accompanied by a great sense of relief, given that it has been cleared at European level and is going ahead.
  The Budge pledge runs to 2004, but what will happen after that? I share the view that there are potential reserves that could be accessed from Ellington colliery, the quality of which we do not entirely know. Budge's first experience in getting beyond the Causey Park dyke and operating from that part of the pit was not encouraging because of the sulphur level and the state of the coal found there. There may be significant reserves further on. I want to see some real development work taking place between now and 2004 in an attempt to give the pit a future thereafter.
  The pit is associated with Alcan power station and smelter, which is next door to it. There has been an increase in employment recently at Alcan, and that is great news for the area. We want to see the future of that industry secure as well. However, we must take action to deal with the job losses that have already happened. At Ellington alone, the work force are a fraction of what they used to be. There were 2,000 men there at one time, as well as the thousands of men in other pits within the Northumberland coalfield.
  We must deal with the general deprivation, which all the figures and indices show, of the former Northumberland coalfield, and we must prepare for the day when the Ellington pit is no more. Even if my ambitions and hopes, and those of other Members, for the future development of the pit are fulfilled, it must be understood that no pit lasts for ever. The history of the coal mining industry is one of considerable difficulty in replacing jobs lost. Sometimes they have been replaced, but mining villages were not always built in convenient places for other industries.
  However, there has been success in some communities. It is time for us to see some success in Northumberland where, as for much of the northern region, we still fall way behind all the favourable and positive indices that Governments like to claim as marks of success. Work must therefore continue on regeneration in the area. Road and rail transport links, for example, could help the area, new industries must be brought into the area, small businesses must be strengthened, and there must be public investment in the infrastructure. The scheme is good news for us, but it must not deter us from the work that needs to be done and which the Government, in particular, must undertake to give the area a future.
  I have a happy footnote on the Ellington colliery band, of which I am president. It has been told that it will get some subsidy from RJB Mining. I am rather pleased about that, as the band does a great job in the community, not least in attracting young people, of whom there are a considerable number in its junior band. The band has a happy link with the colliery, and we look forward to the colliery succeeding in future.
  9.10 pm
  Ms Rachel Squire: May I say that it is good to be in the Chamber to hear good news for the coal mining industry after 18 years of devastation under the previous Government.
  Access to Longannet mine is in my constituency and, as the local Member of Parliament, I pay tribute to everyone who has worked hard on the Mining (Scotland) Ltd. application to the coal aid scheme to try to achieve a future for the only deep mine left in Scotland. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friends the Minister and the Secretary of State for Scotland, as well as to the late First Minister, Donald Dewar, who, tragically, is no longer with us. He did all that he could to help to give Longannet a future. I also pay tribute to Mining (Scotland) Ltd.—especially its chairman, Professor Ross Harper—Scottish Power, Scottish Enterprise, Fife council and my UK and Scottish parliamentary colleagues who have given consistent support.
  I pay special tribute to the National Union of Mineworkers (Scotland) and the miners at Longannet, who refused to give up and be defeated. They have stuck there, determined to give that mine a future. The aid scheme will help to provide a future to the 450 or so miners who remain at Longannet and, hopefully, it will create new jobs and possibly some apprenticeships.
  The miners and Mining (Scotland) Ltd. fully appreciate the challenges ahead. They must grasp this opportunity to develop an up-to-date, modern and competitive mine, as there will be no second chance. We all believe that Longannet is a mine with a future, as there is 20 years' worth of coal waiting to be extracted and a customer committed to buying that coal, namely, Scottish Power. Detailed seismic surveys have shown that there is coal ready for extraction; they will help the mining company to avoid the geological faults that have led to so many difficulties in recent months.
  Longannet is a financially and economically viable mine. Picking up on points made earlier, may I point out that it is an environmentally friendly mine that produces the lowest sulphur coal in the United Kingdom. That coal is transported underground by conveyor belt directly to Longannet power station, which has received heavy investment from Scottish Power to make it environmentally friendly through gas re-burn and flue gas desulphurisation.
  Knowing how keen my colleagues are to speak, I shall end by saying that I look forward to hearing from my right hon. Friend the Minister about when we can expect the cheque to arrive. I express my full support and that of the communities of Dunfermline and west Fife, other parts of Scotland and areas across the UK, for the continuation of our deep-mining industry and the motion on the coal operating aid scheme.
  9.14 pm
  Mr. Jon Trickett: Those of my constituents who work in the Selby pits, the Prince of Wales and Kellingley, their families and communities, welcome today's announcement. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Minister. Neither I nor anyone in the industry underestimates how complicated it was to unpick the Tory legacy. My right hon. Friend's work and determination are to be applauded. Everyone in the communities that I represent recognises that she is a true friend of the industry.

  399
  It is good to see the Government's commitment to the industry being echoed in the private sector. Ferrybridge power station, which takes coal from the local collieries, is to benefit from £100 million worth of new plant for desulphurising coal, which clearly shows the private sector's long-term commitment to coal from the Yorkshire pits. That is welcome, although it remains for the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions to determine the matter.
  I listened with incredulity to the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb). He cries crocodile tears for the industry that his party sought to destroy. Not only did the Conservative Government close the vast bulk of the pits, decimating the mining industry with no sense of compassion or commitment to the nation's interests in terms of its energy needs, but they created the mad dash for gas. The electricity pool was rigged so that we built gas power stations, to the detriment of coal. Yet they knew then that indigenous supplies of gas were limited. They probably have fewer than 12 years to go, and we shall then have to import gas from the former Soviet bloc and the middle east, regions which are politically and geologically unstable.
  The Tories pursued a foolish nuclear energy policy. The nuclear power industry is now costing billions to decommission and its legacy will last for generations. The Tories also failed to pursue the issue of the interconnector, a technical device by which the French can pump energy into Britain, with no reciprocal arrangement by which energy produced with British coal can be pumped back to the continent. The Tories also failed to prevent the subsidies given elsewhere in the EU—£3.5 billion a year in subsidies for French, German and Spanish coal, which is three times more expensive to produce than British coal.
  All this shows the extent to which the Tories were motivated by a sense of vindictiveness towards the mining communities, particularly towards the National Union of Mineworkers. We all know that their real target was the destruction of the union.
  I do not know whether you, Madam Deputy Speaker, read the Mirror, but I am sure that many others do. That august newspaper has revealed a secret plot among the Tories. It states:
  The Tories are secretly plotting to close Britain's remaining coal mines … they want subsidies to coal-fired power stations axed in a plan which would spell disaster for the 17 remaining deep mines
  and the thousands of men who work there.
  The report continues:
  The plan was revealed in a secret Tory briefing paper—
  produced over the road in Smith square—
  which condemns the coal industry as "dirty" and "inefficient"
  despite all the investment that has been made.
  The Tories are determined to close the rest of the pits, despite the fact that British coal is more efficient than that of any other country—one third of the cost of German or French coal. Now that the pool has been disaggregated, the cheapest source of energy is coal, even within the United Kingdom. Those facts, more than anything, demonstrate the political rather than economic determinants of Tory policy.
  The aid that we hope will be agreed this evening is short term and transitional. We need aid over the next two or three years, but we then need a longer-term, strategic review of energy. I know that my right hon. Friend the Minister is concentrating her efforts on that.
  400
  I want to make three points. First, British coal needs a level playing field in the European Union if it is to have a future. I am not in favour of shutting pits in Germany or France, but if subsidies continue elsewhere on the current scale, we must support British coal.
  Secondly, someone must tackle the issue of the interconnector, which allows French and German coal-generated energy to be pumped into the United Kingdom. My third and perhaps most important point is about clean coal technology. If decommissioning Dounreay will cost £4 billion, surely we can find resources for clean coal technology. I appreciate that the Minister is already considering research into that.
  Those points and others will doubtless contribute to a longer-term view now that we have managed to secure the short-term transitional funding.
  9.21 pm
  Mr. Michael Clapham: As the chairman of the all-party coalfield communities group, I can tell my right hon. Friend the Minister that the aid package that she has announced today is welcome in mining communities. The group campaigned for the package; she knows that we campaigned hard, and that we lobbied her. The package will be extremely helpful to the coal mining industry.
  The hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb) said that the Government were all rhetoric. It should be put on record that the Government have honoured their commitment to the mining communities. The Coalfields Regeneration Trust has approved approximately 320 applications, which will mean some £50 million for trying to regenerate some of the coalfield communities that the previous Government neglected so badly.
  It should also be put on record that the Government have introduced compensation schemes for vibration white finger, and for chronic bronchitis and emphysema. They are likely to pay out some £2 billion to miners who were subject to negligence by British Coal. [Interruption.] I stress to the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton that had the previous Government remained in power, the court case that went to appeal would probably have gone to the House of Lords. In an Adjournment debate in January 1996, I proposed a scheme to the previous Government. They replied that they believed that smoking was the bigger cause of chronic bronchitis and emphysema. That implies that they would have fought the case through the House of Lords, and that compensation would not yet have been made available.
  The package will give the operational pits stability, and encourage companies to invest further in mining communities. That will bring opportunities to areas such as the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck (Mr. Murphy), where there is little industry other than the coal mine. In the long term, investment in that coal mine will ensure its durability.
  I have some anxieties, which are due to lifting the gas consents. I believe that they have been lifted early; I understood that they would continue until the new electricity trading arrangements were established. Those are not likely to operate until March next year, and the consents should have been retained until then. A level playing field will be created, which will give coal a little more help.

  401
  We are moving towards overdependence on gas. My right hon. Friend is aware that 40 per cent. of electricity in the UK is generated from gas, and lifting the consents is likely to generate another 5 GW of gas-fired electricity. Gas prices are increasing throughout the world. In America, for example, they have tripled during the past two years, and they have been increasing in this country. Becoming more dependent on gas threatens the competitiveness of British industry.
  Work on proven and possible gas reserves shows that such reserves are likely to be used up significantly by 2003, and we are likely to be importing gas by 2005. Indeed, the 1998 White Paper pointed out that we will probably import up to 90 per cent. of our gas by 2020. That, too, will pose an enormous threat to the competitiveness of British industry. We know from what environmentalists tell us that coal-fired power stations have a detrimental effect on the environment. We should therefore have the foresight to develop and use clean coal technology.
  My right hon. Friend the Minister will be aware that a multiplicity of technologies are available, but one stands out—the integrated combined-cycle gasification system. That system, it is held, could generate electricity from coal efficiently and cleanly—all pollutants would be removed from emissions. Will my right hon. Friend ask her officials to examine the commercial possibilities of that system? It could be the way forward, and if we invest in it, we could secure a sustainable future for the coal industry.
  9.27 pm
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: We ought to put on record the fact that it is 10 years to the day since Mrs. Thatcher got chucked out—she was kicked out like a dog in the night. The interesting thing is that she was kicked out by the Tories, although I had been trying to do that for years. It was Heseltine—I should not refer to him in that way. It was the mob of the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) and, in the end, all those Cabinet members who did it. She was sat there, crying her eyes out, and Kenneth Clarke and all the rest came up to her and said, "You'll have to go."
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Sylvia Heal): Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman, although I am sure that he is very well aware of this and needs no reminding, that we should be discussing the motion on the Order Paper.
  Mr. Skinner: As I was saying, Mrs. Thatcher has got a hell of a lot of responsibility for what we are doing here today. Mrs. Thatcher, those who followed her—including the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major)—and the others got rid of all those pits, with the result that at the end of the strike we were left not with 170,000 jobs, but with about 10,000 jobs and 17 pits.
  Almost none of the people who were thrown out of the pits in the 1980s and 1990s were in the same position as we were in when I changed pits in 1962. I got shifted from a pit because it closed, but I went to another, and I had a choice of four or five. What really scarred the pit villages in the 1980s and 1990s was the fact that miners had nowhere else to go. The Tories should always be held
  402
  to account for that and for the fact that they were so full of revenge that they chucked thousands of miners out into those villages, without any alternative work.
  This Government, having come in 1997, have decided to introduce a scheme to save about 10,000 jobs and 17 pits, for a few years at any rate. I do not go a bundle on the specific proposal because some of the money will end up in Richard Budge's pocket; it might even finish up in Rennco's pocket, or in the pockets of anyone else who buys the pits. I wanted a more satisfactory settlement, but I know that the world ain't perfect. When I tell the miners or ex-miners in Derbyshire about the plan, they say, "Christ, Dennis, I wish we'd had one before Shirebrook, Bolsover, Markham and all the rest were shut."
  I tell my right hon. Friend that, yes, saving the jobs is welcome. It is interesting that coal mining is one of the few heavy industries left. All the talk in the House today is about the internet, but many internet companies are not worth a row of beans. We are talking about a massive industry. It employed 700,000 people when I started work in the pit, but now only a tiny proportion is left.
  According to my hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Trickett), some Tories in central office are now talking about axing the remaining subsidies and shutting the last 17 pits. They should be made to walk to those pit villages month after month to see the injury that they have caused, with hidden unemployment of 20 per cent. In the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes), some miners finished up at Biwater, and now they have conspired to shut that down as well. The women became the breadwinners in the pits areas, but the textile workers have lost their jobs because of the Tory party's friends.
  The scheme is not a lot, but it is better than a poke in the eye with a big stick. We would have liked it in Derbyshire, where there is not even one single deep mine left. I will vote for the measure, as will my hon. Friends.
  We hear the Tories rabbit on about subsidies, but they have just taken a subsidy—almost 4 million quid of Short money. That is a subsidy from the taxpayer, and they have the cheek to talk about subsidies being evil. What have they done with some of that subsidy? They have got tin-pot people at central office trying to devise schemes to get rid of pit subsidies. That shows the hypocrisy of the Tories. They will take money from the taxpayer and set up schemes to sack more people. That really is criminal.
  I hope that none of the money will go to opencast mines. I heard my right hon. Friend's speech, and it sounded as though they might get some of it. We do not want opencast to desecrate the countryside; we have had enough of it. So if she finds a method—a ploy—to ensure that the money does not finish up there, we will give another cheer. We must stop the imports, to ensure that the Ellingtons, the Hatfields and all the rest have an even longer life.
  I have said my party piece. I have had this in my craw for all the years that the Tories were ripping the guts out of my constituency.
  Mr. Ashton: What about farmers' subsidies?
  Mr. Skinner: They are a different story altogether. BSE cost us 5 billion quid, and they then moan about the Common Market and God knows what else.

  403
  We have had a bit of cheer tonight. Now that my right hon. Friend has done that, she has got another job to do, and my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham) referred to it earlier. There is a £3 billion ring fence around chronic bronchitis, emphysema and vibration white finger. Hon. Members will notice that I have put it up from £2 billion to £3 billion already. Now that we have got that heavy load off our minds, we must start to get the lawyers, the doctors and the others who are holding back the claims of those miners who worked all their lives in the pits, many of whom are now coughing their lungs up. My right hon. Friend is a busy woman, but she has another job to do. She has made a bit of a fist of this job; we think we can trust her with that one as well.
  9.35 pm
  Mr. Eric Illsley: I want to reinforce some of the points that my hon. Friends have made. I welcome the subsidy that is being given to the coal industry, and I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will consider not only the coal mines owned by Richard Budge, but some of the private mines that have also struggled to remain in operation in the past few years. The energy companies—PowerGen, National Power and the others—have screwed down the price of coal over the years and have caused real problems for private mines and the price that they can achieve for their coal for generation.
  I echo the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham) about the relaxation of the gas consents. Ever since 1912, the biggest competitor of British Coal has been gas, be it town gas or natural gas. Gas will eclipse the coal industry if the dash for gas is allowed to run riot, as it has been in past years.
  The demand for gas, the price of oil, the Asian economies that are sucking in oil and gas, thus increasing the price, and OPEC's refusal to increase production have meant that coal is at the moment in a slightly privileged position. Gas and oil prices make coal quite competitive on the energy market. However, I caution hon. Members that our good news could be soured somewhat if more and more gas-fired power stations are allowed to enter the market.
  My hon. Friends have argued that we should examine clean coal technology. More than 10 years ago, the Energy Committee, as it then was, produced report after report on clean coal technology, but the previous Administration refused to countenance that technology. They even closed down the last experimental clean coal technology station at Grimethorpe, and refused to consider buying technologies from other countries. So our use of clean coal technology was stopped many years ago. I ask my right hon. Friend to reconsider that technology, and I caution against the release of gas consents.
  9.37 pm
  Mrs. Liddell: I shall not try to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) because I doubt whether I could inject quite as much passion into the issue as he did, but I think that he knows that I have more than a sneaking sympathy with everything that he said.
  It may help hon. Members if I go through the details of the applicants. As shown on the Department of Trade and Industry website, applications have been received
  404
  from RJB in respect of its operations at Selby, Maltby, Harworth, Rossington and Welbeck. Applications have also come from Blenkinsopp collieries and Scottish Coal at Longannet. It would be churlish of me not to mention in the presence of my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, North (Mr. Hughes), who because of his position on the Treasury Front Bench cannot speak on these matters, that the gem of his eye, Hatfield Coal, is also an applicant for subsidy.
  There is a maximum of £75 million per company. We have put forward an application for approximately £17.5 million for Longannet. Applications from other companies are still under discussion or are yet to be received. I draw hon. Members' attention to the order, which relates to subsidy in excess of £10 million, because subsidies above £10 million must be cleared on the Floor of the House.
  Other applications will undoubtedly be made before the end of the year. If pits in hon. Members' constituencies think that they are eligible for subsidy, they must get their applications in before the end of the year.
  Mr. Clapham: As my right hon. Friend read through the list of collieries, I noted that there was no reference to Tower colliery in Wales. Could that colliery be prompted to submit an application?
  Mrs. Liddell: I know that my hon. Friend has been anxious to secure assistance for Tower. My officials are in discussion with Tower and will continue to be so. As the House knows, all Labour Members are proud of what has been achieved at Tower—a considerable achievement indeed.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, West (Ms Squire) asked when the cheque would be in the post. I cannot be specific about that because the Commission must consider the application. However, at the weekend, I spoke informally to the commissioner. She is well aware of the importance of the application from Longannet. I know that her officials are anxious to proceed on those matters as quickly as possible. My officials have gone to considerable lengths to ensure that applications are fully compliant.
  The hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb), who skimmed over the fact that many of the difficulties faced by the coal industry are directly as a consequence of actions by the previous Administration, asked about the Government's position on state aids in general. We continue to take a tough stance on state aids. The Commission is examining the issue of operating aid to Germany. We are pleased, too, that the Commission is examining aid to France. We will continue to prosecute those issues in so far as it is necessary.
  The issue of the stricter gas consents policy has been raised on several occasions. The policy was always viewed as a temporary measure. One of the discoveries that we made when we took over government was the extent to which the energy market was tilted away from the coal industry. The electricity market operated with a distinct bias against it. That is why the stricter gas consents policy was introduced.
  The policy is now being lifted because the Government are satisfied that the programme of electricity market reform that was outlined in the White Paper is substantially in place. That was always our position.

  405
  We have arrived at the point where we recognise that the policy should be lifted, but we are taking significant action to assist the coal industry through the period of transition.
  The hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable), who has made his apologies to me, raised the issue of the environment. I wish to make it clear that the subsidy scheme is not expected to have a significant environmental impact, mainly because the subsidy will not enable purchasers of coal in the United Kingdom to buy coal more cheaply than they could have bought it in the absence of the scheme. Consequently, the scheme is not aimed at increasing overall demand for coal in the UK; nor will it affect consumers' choices between coal and other fuels. Therefore, in that respect, we see no prospect of environmental damage.
  Several hon. Members have raised the issue of cleaner-coal technology. The Government are well aware of that and are anxious to see research into the technology. A considerable amount of work is going on in the private sector. We are conducting an analysis and will do so in even more detail as we proceed with examining the technology. I hope shortly to be in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck (Mr. Murphy) specifically to look at developments at Blyth. If the opportunity arises, I shall be happy to seek to meet a delegation.
  I say to the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) that no application for aid for Ellington has been received. He is right to draw attention to the fact that it is for RJB plc to take action to protect Ellington. I notice that he has been specific about ensuring that that is read on to the record.
  In relation to the overall operation of the subsidy scheme, my Department stands ready to give what assistance it can. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover asked about the opencast industry. It is clear from European Union rules that the scheme must be non-discriminatory. We cannot discriminate between one source of coal and another.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Trickett) referred to a recent article in the Daily Mirror. I, too, noticed it. I note that the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton, when pressed by hon. Friends as to his policy on the future of the coal industry, was extremely quiet about what that would involve.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth also raised the question of the interconnector, as did a number of my hon. Friends. I share their anxiety about its operation, and am prosecuting the issue with some vigour because I believe there may be superficial evidence of unfairness. We shall probe, in order to find out whether the evidence is more than superficial.
  Tonight's debate has been important to many Labour Members who have a long-standing connection with mining. My hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, West recognised the great contribution made by the late Donald Dewar to the future of Longannet. Indeed, the last conversation that I had with Donald Dewar, days before he died, concerned Longannet's future. I am sure that all Labour Members recognise Donald Dewar's commitment to the industry, and I feel that the future of Longannet constitutes a memorial to the work that he did.
  406
  Labour Members have always recognised that the coal industry has an important part to play in future energy development. Let me say to my hon. Friends the Members for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley) and for Bolsover that we also recognise the sacrifices made by men and their families in contributing to the industry. I say this to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover: yes, the issue of coal subsidies has taken up a great deal of my time, but nothing has taken up more of my time than ensuring that there is justice for the miners. I will not rest—I will not give up—until I am confident that we are moving forward, so that the men and their families who so desperately need compensation are given the right to that compensation.
  Mr. Harry Barnes: May I raise something that has not been mentioned yet? In her opening remarks, my right hon. Friend said that additional applications would be considered, including applications relating to small mines. The losses experienced by such mines may mean that they cannot survive, whereas RJB Mining could possibly subsidise one plant from, for instance, opencast operations. Is it possible to take that into account?
  Mrs. Liddell: That was a useful question. The decision on aid is made per production unit, regardless of whether the mine is small or large and regardless of its ownership. The key is the ability to show that, notwithstanding present losses, the pit concerned will be in a position to be viable by the time the coal subsidy scheme ends. That is a way of giving a future to an industry that was ignored by the last Administration.
  This is a significant night for coal communities. I am very pleased to commend the order to the House.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House authorises the Secretary of State to pay, or undertake to pay, by way of financial assistance under section 8 of the Industrial Development Act 1982, and in respect of coal mining qualifying for aid under the UK Coal Operating Aid Scheme, sums exceeding £10 million for each of Hatfield Coal Company Ltd, Mining (Scotland) Limited, and RJB Mining plc.

PETITION

  Death of Anna Fisher
  9.48 pm
  Mr. Jon Trickett: I wish to present a petition on behalf of the people of Ryhill and Havercroft in my constituency. It relates to events following the tragic death of Anna Fisher, and the collapse in public confidence in the criminal justice system that succeeded those events.
  The Petitioners respectfully request that the House of Commons asks Ministers in the Home Department to review the course of the criminal justice system following Anna's death, and if possible to meet Anna's parents to discuss these and related matters.
  And the Petitioners remain, etc
  To lie upon the Table.

  Flooding (Gowdall)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.-[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]
  9.49 pm
  Mr. Ian Cawsey: Mr. Speaker—I am pleased to get your title right this time—I welcome you to the Chair for this debate. A week ago, you kindly called me at Prime Minister's Question Time, when I raised the issue of flooding in the village of Gowdall in my constituency. I was pleased to receive a positive response from my right hon. Friend, who has subsequently made efforts to get the situation moving. Nevertheless, a week later, the village still has severe problems. I should like to explain the problems to the Minister, and give him an opportunity to comment on some of the village residents' very real concerns about all the events of the past fortnight.
  Gowdall is a small village in the north-west tip of my constituency, on the border between east and west Yorkshire, and has suffered dreadfully from flooding in the past week or so. Of course, there have been floods in many parts of the country. Floods in York—which moved down around Selby, and into parts of Selby—received national media attention, but they ended up in Gowdall. We have also seen media reports from various places about how the situation is returning to normal and people are getting back to their business. In Gowdall, however, the situation is still difficult, as water is still within the village boundary and some residents are unable to return to their homes.
  When the water first started moving towards Gowdall, the Environment Agency attempted to prevent it from reaching the village by making a dam across a railway embankment. Sadly, there was so much water that the dam burst. Very quickly, Gowdall was under several feet of water and people had to be evacuated from their homes. Almost 100 homes, in a village of 150 homes, had to be evacuated. It has been a traumatic experience for everyone involved.
  Some of my comments in this debate will deal with the response of agencies, emergency services and local authorities to the flooding. I should say right away that there has been nothing but warm praise for the exceptional efforts made by people from the agencies, emergency services and local authorities who were in the village as events unfolded. They were working against extraordinary weather, and they faced an extremely difficult task with great fortitude. I know from conversations with villagers that they very much welcomed all those efforts.
  Whenever there is a severe flood, questions are inevitably asked about the Environment Agency—which, after all, has the responsibility for looking after the country's flood defences. Villagers had some real concerns—which, as people's homes were flooded, turned to anger—about the agency's actions. The entire ground floors of some people's houses were flooded, and some bungalows were entirely flooded. The damage has been very significant and very real.
  One reason why frustration has turned to anger is that, last week, the local community tried to organise a public meeting with the Environment Agency, so that agency representatives could answer questions about what had
  408
  gone wrong and what the agency could do to help in the future. The Environment Agency, however, failed to attend the meeting. That has made matters rather worse.
  Last week, I raised that very point with the Prime Minister. Subsequently, on Sunday, Sir John Harman, the Environment Agency chairman, visited the village and met several of the villagers. He heard some of their concerns, and he answered their questions the best he could. I am pleased to tell the Minister that, this weekend, we hope to have another public meeting which Sir John has assured us will be attended by a member of his staff who will answer villagers' questions. I think that that in itself will be a step forward.
  One of the villagers' main concerns was about why the floods were so severe this time. Gowdall has flooded in the past. Indeed, there were particularly bad floods in 1947, but there has never been flooding on the scale that has been experienced in the past week or so. People want to know whether that was due to the actions taken by the Environment Agency.
  We all understand that floods are fast-moving events; that an extremely large quantity of water has to go somewhere; and that, after all, flood defences direct water but do not take it away. Nevertheless, there is real concern that the actions taken by the Environment Agency made matters in Gowdall very much worse than they had ever been before. That gives rise to a very real feeling that because bigger communities needed protecting, Gowdall was somehow neglected. It is a small village and people were concerned that it had become expendable as attempts were made to save larger communities. The absence of any attempt by the agency to answer that point has heightened that fear.
  People want to know what lessons have been learned. We have certainly found out that the enormous plain of water that remains—which continues for several miles and which is quite deep in parts—will not go away naturally. The Government have brought in some of the largest water pumps in the world from Holland, where they understand quite a lot about the process. This has been done at enormous expense. If this happens again in Gowdall—obviously, we hope that it will not—or elsewhere in the country, what preparations will the Government and the agency be making to ensure that they do not have to take the extreme measure of importing the technical equipment necessary to pump the water away? Lessons need to be learned and we would very much like to hear from the Minister about that.
  We understand that there is likely to be some temporary work to install some sort of flood defence as soon as possible. It is absolutely certain that the natural defences and barriers that were in place before the floods have been completely obliterated by the water that has come into the village. At the moment, the village does not even have the level of protection that it previously enjoyed. Residents are concerned that the weather may worsen again. Indeed, we are told to expect several months of this. If the village is left unprotected, all the efforts that are now being made will be wasted and the residents will be back where they were a few days ago.
  The agency seems to be saying that it is likely to be five weeks before even a temporary defence will be in place in the village. That certainly causes concern among residents. Any reassurance that the Minister can give us on that will be most welcome.

  409
  Most of the houses and bungalows in the village have been so badly flooded that it will be some time before people can move back into them, but residents are trying to get back to the village to do some work on their properties. Some of them are bringing in caravans and mobile homes. If people are considering taking the time, trouble and expense of having a mobile home on their land or in their drives for weeks, before the village has any flood protection, they want some advice from the Minister about that.
  When the temporary defences are in place and people move back into the village to begin the recovery process and try to get their lives back to normal as quickly as possible, they want to know about longer-term issues and what will be done to ensure that the village remains adequately protected. Will there be a review of Britain's flood defences and will they be co-ordinated so that in protecting some parts of the country we do not push the water into other communities? Surely the whole point of good and adequate defence is not only to protect larger communities, but, wherever possible, to move water away from all communities so that people can get on with their lives with a degree of confidence in what is happening in their areas.
  Part of that process can be the use of local people. People who have lived in an area for a long time often have an extremely good knowledge of what happens when water moves and banks burst. They have seen such things happen over the years, and there was some criticism, when problems began to affect Gowdall, to the effect that some local people had tried to speak to—
  It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]
  Mr. Cawsey: As floods reached Gowdall, local people tried to offer advice to Environment Agency workers about where best to erect barriers and what might happen as a result. There was some criticism that that advice was turned down. I mentioned that to Sir John Harman at the weekend, and he seemed to want to ensure that local people's knowledge was fed into the process. I hope that the Minister will offer some clarification and guidance on that.
  A crucial element in the process will be recovery. A small and extremely pretty village has been devastated by the floods. People want to be assured that it will be rebuilt in a way that restores its natural charm and as quickly as possible. The Government clearly have a role in making aid and assistance available. I shall be interested to hear what the Minister has to say in that regard.
  Lessons can be learned from what happened and from the way in which the operation was handled. The local authority is East Riding of Yorkshire unitary council, which has had people dealing with command centres and so on from the moment that the floods began. It must be remembered that most people in the village had to be evacuated, and that they were scattered to addresses in the locality. There was a feeling among them that contact was not maintained properly at that time. As a result, villagers felt that they did not know what was being done for them.
  410
  I hope that another flood does not happen but, if it does, I trust that the communication process will be handled much better.
  I know that the Minister has written to council chief executives and to those Members of Parliament who represent affected areas, and that the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions has recommended that areas that have suffered floods should form a local flood recovery committee. I should be interested to know whether that has been put in hand.
  However, I understand that, if such committees are formed and begin to do the work expected of them, they will be required to contribute to a Cabinet sub-committee that my hon. Friend will chair. Will he say what such local committees are likely to get from that Cabinet sub-committee in terms of support and aid to ensure that villages such as Gowdall recover as quickly as possible?

  Councils have a difficult job when incidents such as the recent floods happen in their area. They need to have the confidence that the Government will supply the support and assistance that will help them get on with the job in hand.
  I said earlier that people were moving back into the village slowly but surely, and that an option in some cases was to use mobile homes. It is possible that, for large mobile homes, difficulties might arise over matters such as planning approvals. I hope that my hon. Friend will reassure me that such matters can be dealt with speedily and efficiently, so that people can be allowed to get on with their lives as quickly as possible.
  In addition, I understand that East Riding of Yorkshire unitary council has told people who are unable to live in their flood-damaged homes for as long as 12 months that they will be eligible for a council tax exemption. Again, I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to confirm that, as it will be very helpful for people in Gowdall.
  Insurance is a key issue. Most people are insured and are already involved in the process of submitting claims, arranging visits from loss adjusters and trying to get work done in their homes. However, that needs to be done speedily and efficiently. What have the Government done to arrange meetings with representatives of the insurance industry to ensure that claims are dealt with as quickly as possible?
  Apart from dealing with current claims, local people have a real concern about the future. Will they find it difficult to obtain policies? Will their premiums be unaffordable? It would be an important reassurance for people in Gowdall to learn that the Government are putting pressure on the insurance industry to ensure that they receive insurance in the future.
  Sadly, there are always some people who are uninsured at a time of crisis—Gowdall is no exception; I have spoken to one or two people in the village who are in that predicament. My hon. Friend has visited Gowdall. He has met—as have I—Mr. Hinchcliffe, a good man who has been devastated by the events. I visited the village twice last weekend; on the first occasion, Mr. Hinchcliffe had not yet returned to his home, but on my second visit, we looked around his house together. It was hard not to be moved at the sight of all the damage left in his home—especially as he was uninsured.
  I realise that my hon. Friend takes the Government view; they are not a free insurance company and insurable risk is a personal responsibility—but we are in this

  411
  situation. Out of a sense of humanity, what help and advice can be offered to people who find themselves with such problems?
  When my hon. Friend visited Gowdall, he said that the social fund might be able to give interest-free crisis loans to people for part of the costs—for example, for furniture. However, one of the practical difficulties is that the social fund is cash limited over a financial year and that we are already some way through the current financial year. People may find that, when they apply to the Benefits Agency, they are told that they are eligible but that there is no—or little—money left in the fund. It would be reassuring if my hon. Friend could tell us whether additional funds will be allocated to the Benefits Agency, so that people who are in significant need have somewhere to turn to.
  Many people feel that the actions of the Environment Agency have played a part, so it is hardly surprising that people want to know whether they have access to compensation schemes through the agency. Not only the village of Gowdall but much of the surrounding farmland was flooded. I spent part of Saturday being taken around the area in a police boat. It was like being on a huge reservoir; it was difficult to remember that, only 10 days previously, one could have walked across fields.
  The impact on fanners has obviously been devastating—as everyone is aware, they are having a bad enough time already. We understand that the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is willing to consider the use of the set-aside scheme to give money to farms in those areas. That will be welcome and I do not want to be churlish about it, but the loss of crops or livestock significantly outweighs anything that farmers would receive from a set-aside scheme. If media reports are to be believed, my right hon. Friends the Chancellor and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food are discussing that matter. I should welcome any comments that my hon. Friend may be able to make about that.
  Farming is not the only business in Gowdall; I have already written to my hon. Friend about a carp fishery in the village. That is the one property on the other side of the railway embankment; inevitably, when the Environment Agency decided to try to build a dam on that embankment, it was absolutely certain that the property on the wrong side would be flooded. That is exactly what happened. It happened very quickly. A warning was given, but it did not allow my constituent time to do something about his fishery stock. He lost tens of thousands of pounds of stock as a result of that action in trying to dam off the embankment. I should be grateful for any comment that the Minister could make on whether businesses that find themselves in such a position may be considered for any help in the future.
  We all need to look to the future. Planning is a real issue. One thing that struck me when I spoke to villagers was that many of them who had been in the village for some time felt that, over the years, bad planning decisions had been taken. The planning line in the local plan for Gowdall allows future expansion of buildings only on lower and lower land, when one would think that the logic would be to do the reverse. I hope that the Minister will take back to the Government a message that if we are to have future development in areas such as Gowdall, local authorities really must be given proper guidance, to ensure that we do not allow building to occur that will place future home owners' homes at risk.
  412
  People in Gowdall love their village, and they want to stay in it. They want answers to the failings of the defence systems. They want reassurance about new defence systems, access to affordable insurance, and a recovery plan that ensures that the village, which they all rightly adore, is returned to its former pristine condition as soon as possible. Although I have asked about many detailed issues, that is the simple message that villagers want me to give the Minister tonight. I hope that my hon. Friend can respond positively to that genuine desire on the part of local residents.
  10.12 pm
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Elliot Morley): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Mr. Cawsey) on securing the debate, and on the way that he has raised the understandable and legitimate concerns of the people of Gowdall, whom he represents.
  My hon. Friend and I have been in touch so frequently about Gowdall, because I have ministerial responsibility for these matters, that, following his assiduous pressure, there is almost nothing that I do not know about the village. I know how well he has served his constituents and how much time he has devoted to visiting them, expressing their concerns and speaking to local organisations. I quite understand the concerns of the people that he represents. I shall try to deal with some of the points that he has raised.
  I do understand that when people have suffered an event of this kind, and had their home wrecked and many of their possessions destroyed, they feel very upset. There is an understandable tendency to look for someone to blame—to ask who is responsible. This flood was exceptional, and in relation to what happened in Gowdall, there was very little that could have been done to stop it.
  I think that some of the comments by residents of Gowdall that have been reported are somewhat unjustified, even given their distress and the stress that they are under. For example, I was very sorry to read a comment in the Daily Mail by a local resident, Mr. Archer, who claimed:
  We feel we have been forgotten by the Government. John Prescott and Tony Blair have not come here and Prince Charles was in Yorkshire the other day because of the floods but he didn't visit us.
  I obviously cannot direct Prince Charles, but my hon. Friend well knows that, following his intervention directed at me as a Minister responsible, I did visit Gowdall twice—the first time before it had flooded, when he and I visited some of the Environment Agency staff who were working on flood defences in the area, because we were very worried about what was happening to Gowdall. I spoke to him by telephone many times to say that the situation was very grave, and of course, warnings were given. The warning systems worked very well. Gowdall had four days warning of the flood risk.
  I changed my itinerary and visited the people of the village on 11 November along with Professor Roy Ward, the chairman of the Yorkshire regional flood defence committee, and Bryan Utteridge, the head of the Environment Agency's flood defence group. Gowdall also had a visit from Sir John Harman who accompanied my hon. Friend last Sunday to talk to the villagers. Although I appreciate that I am not in the same category as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, I am the Minister

  413
  responsible for flood defences and I do not think that my visit suggests that the Government have ignored the villagers' plight. I received reports on Gowdall that were updated three times a day, and I have followed the situation carefully.
  Since the floods, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made it clear that, even though the floods are no longer in the national news—in most places they have receded—he does not want people in flood-hit areas to think that they are being ignored. He certainly does not want the people of Gowdall to think that they are being ignored. As a result, he has set up a Cabinet Committee taskforce to deal with floods and the aftermath of floods. He has asked me, as the Minister responsible for flood defences, to chair the committee.
  My hon. Friend asked me about insurance, and I understand that it is an important issue for people who have been flooded out and are worried about whether they will be able to obtain reinsurance or will have to face big premiums. The Cabinet Committee and my colleagues in the Treasury have met the Association of British Insurers to discuss the problem. We stressed to the association that we want insurance companies to provide the speedy professional response that we know that they are capable of providing. We want them to provide the services that people need and that will help them with their problems.
  Although premiums and the services of insurance companies are subject to commercial considerations, the association and individual insurance companies assured me that there will be no moves towards preventing people from obtaining insurance or raising premiums by a large amount. People will receive the insurance cover that they need and they will not face huge increases in their premiums.
  When I visited Gowdall with my hon. Friend, I met people who had no insurance. One cannot help but feel sympathy for people in that position. However, as my hon. Friend rightly pointed out, the Government are not an insurance company. We do not have the facilities to become one; we do not have assessors; and we cannot make provision for insurance. We cannot offer people compensation if they do not have insurance for insurable risks. However, we have the facility through crisis loans and the social fund to help the people who are most in need—those without assets or funds in the bank to buy the essentials that they require. Appeal funds have also been set up to help people in those circumstances.
  I was concerned to hear from my hon. Friend of reports that people, who had inquired about the social fund and crisis loans, had been told that they were cash-limited funds—that is true—and that, because we were coming towards the end of the year, the funds were nearly exhausted. People were told that their applications may not be successful.
  I make it clear to my hon. Friend that I conveyed that report to the Cabinet Committee taskforce group and discussed it at the highest level in the Benefits Agency. I have been assured that, if the funds in the areas affected by floods are cash limited, extra resources will be made available. People should have no fear about making an application if they fit the criteria. The money will be made available from central contingency funds.
  414
  My hon. Friend said that people are asking why Gowdall was flooded. There is no evidence whatever that Gowdall was sacrificed to try to protect other areas, and I would not expect the Environment Agency to take such action. The country experienced the worst floods since 1947, and Gowdall had floods that were worse than those of 1947. The River Ouse was at its highest level for 400 years. To put it simply, Gowdall is on a flood plain and was therefore in the path of a flood seven miles long, containing 30 million tonnes of water; that is why it flooded.
  Some 50 employees of the Environment Agency and the East Riding of Yorkshire unitary council worked night and day, at some risk to themselves, trying to protect Gowdall by sandbagging the defences and shoring up a railway embankment to the west of the village. Sadly, those defences were overwhelmed because of the sheer volume of water. I emphasise that Gowdall was not sacrificed, and an enormous amount of work was done to try to defend it.
  My hon. Friend asked me about compensation for farmers whose land is flooded. When I went to Gowdall, I talked to local farmers about the situation, and I sympathise with their case. We have used our national discretion to allow farmers whose land is underwater to put that land into set-aside retrospectively, which means that they will receive area payments. I understand that some farmers, especially potato farmers, will not benefit from such measures. I talked to them, and I know that Ben Gill, the president of the National Farmers Union, has been to see my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Mr. Gill brought with him a dossier, detailing the damage to farmland caused by the floods, and that is being considered.
  My hon. Friend mentioned his constituent who is a carp farmer, which is a specialist profession. If there are issues relating to whether his land was flooded because of the actions of the Environment Agency, I will make inquiries and find out whether any compensation is available. I will then contact my hon. Friend about the matter.
  Because the washlands on which Gowdall sits had flooded, there were problems even when the river levels went down because Gowdall found itself, sitting on a flood plain, with water trapped between that plain and the river embankment. The Environment Agency brought in, at some cost, three of the world's biggest mobile pumps, to try to drain the water in Gowdall, and it has gone down very slowly. The agency also acted to drain the washlands by breaching the banks to let the water out. It will repair those breaches when the water has drained out. In addition, the internal drainage boards' pumps are working night and day to pump water out of the washlands. My latest information is that yesterday only three homes in Gowdall remained flooded, and I hope that the situation has improved since.
  The Environment Agency has been meeting with local residents at 10 o'clock every morning to discuss the situation. It is currently evaluating the defences, and lessons will be learned. In response to my hon. Friend's point about the Rivers Aire and Ouse, I can tell him that there will be a full catchment area review, which the Government will fund through the agency. As my hon. Friend already knows, an extra £51 million has been made available to enhance and uprate flood defences, and the agency will review the flood defences in the Gowdall area to see what needs to be done and whether extra

  415
  expenditure is required. Of course, there will have to be inspections and repairs because many of the flood defences held back water for much longer than they were designed to.
  We must pay tribute to the Environment Agency, the Army, the police, the emergency services and local councils. Their response was fantastic and professional, and they smoothly carried out the emergency plans, which worked very well. They did well to defend many areas and the homes in them that were under considerable risk. It is a tragedy that Gowdall just could not be defended; it was in the path of a gigantic flood working its way towards the North sea.
  On my hon. Friend's point about temporary homes and caravans, I understand that the council is considering council tax exemptions, which I shall of course check.
  I have spoken to the chief executive of the East Riding of Yorkshire unitary council and, as chairman of the taskforce, have written to every local authority affected by flooding, asking for multi-agency committees to be set up. We want to try to spread best practice. We want to play our part through central Government agencies to work with local authorities to try to ensure that people receive the service that they expect and to which, indeed, they are entitled.
  However, I again say to my hon. Friend that many who work for East Riding of Yorkshire unitary council were very disappointed by some of the villagers' comments, which I did not think were representative. The council maintained a 24-hour presence in the Gowdall area from the very beginning. Its workers monitored the progress of the flood, radioing in on its progress and depth. Its workers were among the 50 people who sandbagged the defences to try to save Gowdall.
  The council opened up the Snaith bronze control centre and helped to re-house 70 people from Gowdall. It provided a mobile service centre, which is a model to other areas. A converted bus is now parked in Gowdall and staffed 24 hours a day. Incidentally, many council workers have not earned overtime for working such hours. They have worked because of their commitment to public service, and because there was an emergency and they wanted to play their part.
  The council started the clean-up, providing skips. Staff helped to move carpets and damaged goods. A team is to visit every house in Gowdall to ask whether people need help or attention. A building controls inspector is on call to advise people on structural damage to their homes. Environmental health inspectors are also on call to advise people. Specialist council insurance assessors are on call
  416
  for the people of Gowdall, advising them on what they should be claiming. The council helped to ensure 24-hour policing when the village was flooded, and the police ensured that everyone in Gowdall was accounted for. That issue was raised with me when I visited the village. The council is committed to a clean-up.
  The support that the council has provided has been exemplary. Indeed, I know that in places such as Stamford Bridge, which has been flooded for the second time in two years, people have been very appreciative of the council's actions on their behalf. Although I understand that people in Gowdall feel concerned and are under some stress, they ought to bear in mind that some of the comments have been very hurtful to people who have showed such commitment to the area and worked so hard to try to ensure that residents have received the support and backing that they need and deserve.
  Mr. Cawsey: I am conscious that my hon. Friend is rapidly running out of time, but anxious that he comments on the temporary flood defences that are not likely to be in place for five weeks. What advice would he give people who want to move back into the area in the meantime?
  Mr. Morley: I understand my hon. Friend's point. There will be some risk during the winter because the ground is saturated and the rivers are full. Further rain may cause flooding. People should remember that flooding was the result of extreme circumstances and that defences will be repaired and strengthened as soon as possible.
  Of course I cannot give my hon. Friend a guarantee that there will not be further floods; I do not think that anyone could do that. However, we can try to reduce the risks, and we shall be working with the Environment Agency to do so. We shall be advising people in Gowdall about the risks and when they can start to think about moving mobile homes into the area, if that is what they want.
  I emphasise that we fully understand the pressures that the people of Gowdall are under. I fully understand the enormous commitment that my hon. Friend has made to the village and his anxiety in ensuring that residents receive the support that they need and to which they are entitled. I give a commitment, as the Minister responsible, to work with him to ensure that they receive that support, in order to try to overcome the distress and extreme circumstances that they have faced, so that we can bring normality back to the village of Gowdall as quickly as possible.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at half-past Ten o'clock.

Preamble
[SIR ALAN HASELHURST in the Chair]

UK Fish Processing Industry
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]
9.30 am
Mr. Frank Doran: I am grateful for the opportunity to address the House on the United Kingdom's fish processing industry, which has a long and honourable history, but faces serious difficulties. That is not a Scottish problem; it is a UK problem—indeed, it is fair to say that it is a European problem.
Industry leaders have advised me that this is an historic debate, because it is the first time that the House of Commons has debated the fish processing industry in its own right. The subject is usually tacked on as an addendum to general debates on the fishing industry, in which the focus is always on the fish catching side, because it is much more dangerous and has a certain glamour. The industry is extremely important, employing about 136,500 staff in the UK. That huge figure comes from the recent Sea Fish Industry Authority report on training, which makes it clear that the industry is not limited to the catching side; it also involves processing, merchants, retail, fishmongering and the frying and restaurant business. The industry penetrates every aspect of our society.
I shall speak mainly about my local industry in Aberdeen and the Grampian region, which I know best, but this is a UK debate and many right hon. and hon. Members from around the country are present to take part. In the Grampian region, 5,000 people are employed in the fish processing industry, 2,000 of whom work in the city of Aberdeen. The past few years have been extremely difficult for the industry, mainly because it has had to come to terms with a raft of new regulations. The first sentence of the recent report on the industry by the Select Committee on Agriculture says:
The fishing industry in the United Kingdom is often represented by itself and others as an industry of victims.
That is a little harsh. However, the industry has had to cope with a tremendous amount of new regulation, although not as a result of the actions of the current Government; most of it has emanated from Europe and been applied by successive Governments. The regulations on food hygiene and packaging, the new veterinary regulations and the urban waste water directive have all applied pressure on the industry, and my local experience tells me that the industry has responded magnificently.
Today we have an industry that has modernised itself. It concentrates on providing consumers with what they want—a quality product at an affordable price. It is important to recognise that. There has been a big shakeout in the industry: both locally and nationally, there has been a considerable reduction in the number of its employees.
50WH
The industry relies, above all, on supplies of fresh raw product. The shortage of product is creating the most serious challenge that the industry has faced for many years. As I said, the problem affects more than the UK; it is Europe-wide. The industry depends on supplies of quality fish, but this year alone, landings at the quayside in the UK are down by about 40 per cent. My hon. Friend the Minister occasionally goes to Brussels and his officials are working away furiously behind the scenes in the current round of negotiations on next year's total allowable catches, although we do not know what to expect in terms of detail from these negotiations. We know that the Minister is doing an excellent job for the industry here, but the scientific evidence suggests that the news we hear will not be good. At worst, we expect a total ban on cod fishing and, at best, a 50 per cent. cut in cod catches, 23 per cent. in haddock, 20 per cent. in whiting and cuts in most other species.
We have had cuts before and casualties as a result, but the industry has always managed to pull through. This time, however, the situation is much more serious. In my area, the industry has always managed to deal with the inevitable peaks and troughs. In the good fishing months of summer, it stockpiles fish in cold store to be processed through the months of January, February and March when fish stocks are very low, but this year, it has been virtually impossible to stockpile because of shortages of fresh fish at the quayside. Yesterday, I spoke to an industry adviser who had been dealing with a company in Aberdeen. Its accounts are audited every year and its accounts for this year have just been audited: in 1998, it stored £390,000-worth of fish for the winter months; last year, it managed to store £ 360,000-worth of fish; this year, the figure is zero. The company would have bought fish if it could have, but it was just not there to be bought.
A reasonable question is why such companies do not import foreign fish, as they do, for example, on Humberside. Frozen fish can be bought from Norwegian, Icelandic or Faeroese trawlers and then processed. However, we in the north-east of Scotland have a particular problem with that sort of fish, because it is large. The north-east has traditionally processed smaller fish: that is what our skilled workers are trained to do and our machinery and equipment are geared to process. Therefore, we face a significant problem.
We have been buying Baltic fish from Russian trawlers, and several companies in the north-east have survived on that trade. However, I see that the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) is here, and he might tell us about a company in his constituency that specialised in that area, but has recently had to close its doors. There is a serious problem with Baltic supplies of cod and haddock—our staple product. The fish is not available to buy.
Recently, other Russian vessels have been selling fish at Aberdeen quayside—they have been selling cod and haddock caught off Rockall. Since the area was opened up, Rockall has become a fairly emotive topic, especially for our fishermen. There are no restrictions on the size of catches or quotas on fish caught off Rockall. Yesterday, I spoke to a fish processor who had been offered haddock that were only 6 in long—less than the minimum UK landing size; if the fish had been caught in the North sea, it would have been illegal. There is

51WH
another potential disaster in the making off Rockall, because the seas there are being plundered. The fish caught there can be sold in the UK because it was not caught in the North sea, but it is not of the quality that our processors or the customer want. It does not meet the demands of the market, so it is not a long-term solution.
Another solution is under consideration in my local authority area. Aberdeen City council and the local enterprise company are examining the possibility of setting up a co-operative to buy foreign fish that currently goes to Humberside and other ports. Some risks are attached to the project and it is difficult to assess at this stage, because final decisions will not be taken until January. It will not be a perfect solution, even if the co-operative is established and is able to persuade Norwegian and Icelandic boats to land their fish in Aberdeen. Large fish are suitable only for large operators who can afford to adjust their processes; smaller and medium-sized businesses will be unable to do so. Furthermore, the price of foreign frozen fish has rocketed recently, so a new purchaser coming on to the market will have repercussions for the rest of the UK industry, and the price of that basic commodity and staple food source will rise even higher. I welcome the initiative of my local council and local fish merchants association in conceiving and pursuing their plan, but I am worried about the consequences for the UK fishing industry as a whole. We must consider that very seriously.
Mr. Anthony Steen: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising an important matter. I represent the second-largest fishing port in England and Wales, so I am familiar with the problems that he mentions. We have a co-operative comprising about 100 boats, which works extremely well. When the Government took office, the Minister stated that 50 per cent. of all fish caught by European boats would have to be landed in Britain. I wonder whether that has happened and whether it impinges on the circumstances that the hon. Gentleman describes.
Mr. Doran: To be honest, I cannot answer that question, but perhaps the Minister can. I know that there are significant landings of foreign fish in the UK, but we all know that the price of fish still goes up. If my local area attracts that sort of fish, we shall have to pay a premium price for it, which may affect supplies to other parts of the country—including Totnes.
I have tried to describe the biggest crisis that I have ever seen in the industry—the shortage of product. We are already seeing the consequences, both business and social, of that crisis. Pressure is being applied now. If my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg) catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, she might talk about a large company in her constituency that has gone into receivership in the past couple of weeks, largely because of the problem that I have identified and the pressure that it creates. I know from contacts in the industry in my area that between now and Christmas, many companies are expected to go to the wall with many redundancies. The position is as bad as that.
52WH
One of the most serious problems is the attitude of the banks. Like everyone else, banks read press reports. Some companies are heavily committed to the banks, because they borrowed heavily to meet the new hygiene regulations and other requirements that I mentioned earlier. That has had a serious effect on their business. The banks are currently negotiating with the companies overdraft limits for next year. The banks are adopting a severe line, because they are worried about protecting their investment in the industry. I would not go so far as to suggest that the banks are panicking, but all the signs are there and additional pressure is being placed on businesses that are already seriously pressured.
I hope that today's debate will persuade my hon. Friend the Minister to send a message about the long-term future of the industry. Although he cannot say anything about individual businesses, it is important to give a clear signal about the future of the fishing industry, because that will help companies whose banks are putting them under pressure. In my area, a number of businesses are likely to go to the wall between now and Christmas, and the position is no different elsewhere. The result of the negotiations in Brussels will be a crucial determining factor. I hope that the businesses can fight through, but I fear the worst.
I especially concerned that the most exposed companies are those that borrowed heavily to meet the hygiene regulations and other requirements. They put quality first and are trying to cater for the market that they identified. My fear is that if those businesses go, the industry's hard-won reputation for quality will plummet because only those that have not modernised will be left. Such businesses managed to meet the minimum requirements of the regulations, but they have not worked in the same markets as the more go-ahead companies. That is a serious problem. The food industry's reputation has suffered a number of knocks from the BSE crisis and other difficulties. I would hate the fishing industry to be in that situation, although there is no fear of it at present. None the less, if the larger companies that invested start to fail, there will be serious difficulties.
There 2,000 highly skilled workers in the industry in Aberdeen, but those skills are not easily transferable. The workers' profile is interesting: about 50 per cent. of the work force is female, of whom 50 per cent. are single parents and therefore the main breadwinner in their household. The fact that their jobs are threatened is a serious worry. We do not have a major unemployment problem in Aberdeen, but the same cannot be said of other parts of the country, where the employee profile is likely to be similar.
There is a caveat: in the 1970s when the herring fisheries collapsed, there was no scheme to encourage the retention of the skills of the work force. Therefore, when herring supplies were reintroduced, the skills were not available to cope with the supplies. The north-east of Scotland lost that business because there was no one with the skill to take it on.
I am painting a bleak picture. I do not do so lightly. It is important to present the truth, with all the qualifications, but I am struggling to find qualifications, because the industry is heading for crisis and it is difficult to know what can be done about it. There might be short-term solutions. The problem of job losses must be considered. About 30 years ago, there was a temporary

53WH
scheme in place to retain workers, who were paid a premium during difficult periods in the fishing industry, so that they would be available for work when fish were again landed at the quayside. I would appreciate the Minister's consideration of such a scheme, which would operate through the Department for Education and Employment. The banks, too, are important; some indication of confidence in the industry should be given to help customers' discussions with their bank.
There is a serious excess capacity in the industry—not only in catching and processing —which will continue at least for the next few years, although accurate predictions are difficult. There may be difficulty with North sea quotas for two years, and it might be as many as five years before the stocks recover. It is best to plan cautiously and to prepare for the most difficult eventuality. If a longer-term problem develops, the point about overcapacity will become even more relevant. We need to look seriously at restructuring an industry that is the epitome of private enterprise and the application of market forces —but which will not be able to survive with market forces as its only support. The Government must consider what contribution they can make to restructuring the industry.
As the Minister knows, the Select Committee on Agriculture reported, in its eighth report, on the sea fishing industry in the 1998-1999 session. It made a firm recommendation:
However, our overriding concern is that the Government establish a settled, transparent long-term strategy for management of fisheries which takes into account the competitive position compared to other EU countries and within which the industry can plan, confident that any necessary changes will apply equally and be introduced fairly, with proper consultation and with regard to clear and agreed objectives.
The Government welcomed the report and the Minister asked the Sea Fish Industry Authority to consider that recommendation. I stress the pressing nature of the case to the Minister. He is expecting a report in January but he should give some indication of our direction in regard to a longer-term strategy. Every business has to produce and apply a plan of operation and we need a long-term strategy for the whole fishing industry—the catching side as well as the processing side.
I began by mentioning the Sea Fish Industry Authority figure of 136,500 people employed in the industry. That is a significant level of employment. I am old enough to remember the major problems we experienced about 30 years ago, when potato prices went through the roof because of potato shortages. I remember the tabloid headlines about losing our fish supper, because, although we had the fish, we lacked the chips. The nation does not want to live on chips. We want to continue to have fish suppers.
9.52 am
Mr. Anthony Steen: I congratulate the hon. Member for Aberdeen, Central (Mr. Doran) on introducing the debate. As he said, it is the first debate of its kind. However, without being too churlish, it is interesting to note how many Scottish and how many English Members are present. I hope that, with your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the Scottish Members
54WH
will not monopolise the debate—although we are grateful to the hon. Member for having brought the matter to the attention of the Committee.
Sir Robert Smith: It is not in the power of the Deputy Speaker to determine who turns up for a debate and decides to take part. It is up to us to turn up if we wish to take part.
Mr. Steen: That is a fair comment, but Scottish Members have two bites of the cherry. They have both the Scottish and the Westminster Parliament for debate, but English Members have only one Parliament.
Mr. Alex Salmond: Is that not all the more reason why the hon. Gentleman's English colleagues should have taken the opportunity to attend today? Is not the fact that some—by no means all—Scottish Members have the opportunity to speak twice in fishing debates a comment on how their work rate compares with that of the hon. Gentleman's English colleagues?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. It would be helpful if that argument were reserved for another place and we devoted our time now to the fish processing industry.
Mr. Steen: I am grateful for your guidance, Sir Alan, because the Minister is here to deal with English as well as Scottish matters—even though Scottish Ministers can also deal with Scottish matters.
I welcome the debate, as I represent the second largest fishing port in England and Wales, and pay tribute to the hon. Member for Aberdeen, Central who introduced it. He chairs the all-party fishing group—
Mr. Doran indicated dissent.
Mr. Steen: Well, he talks as if he carries out that function. I am glad that the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell), the real chairman of the all-party fishing group is here. English Members of Parliament have turned up in force to the debate, but we will not get much chance to speak given the number of hon. Members who represent Scottish constituencies who are here.
The problem with the fish processing industry is that it is dependent on the amount of fish that are caught. That reminds me of a debate that has been held many times in the House about the extent to which other European countries have access to our waters. Many people argue that the intrusion of Dutch and Spanish vessels has affected our fishing stock and fishing processing industry. Huge articulated Spanish lorries are on the quay each morning in the small port of Salcombe where I live. Inside those lorries are massive tanks in which are placed tens of thousands of crabs and lobsters. The lorries are then driven back to Spain each day. How much easier it would be if the crabs and lobsters walked across the water to Spain and France, and saved all the time and trouble taken to drive them there.

55WH
We are losing enormous quantities of fish and shellfish to the Spaniards who, of course, have over-fished their waters to such an extent that no fish are left. They therefore plunder our stock—albeit legally, as it turns out—by buying our quota. Instead of the fish being processed in Britain, they are processed in Spain, France or Holland. I do not know whether the Minister can do anything about that, but early in this Parliament he said that a new deal had been struck with the Europeans. I do not know if that was part of the Amsterdam treaty, but I recollect that 50 per cent. of all the catch of European boats had to be landed in this country.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Elliot Morley): It might be helpful if I clarified the situation. The hon. Gentleman is referring to the economic link conditions that we negotiated. They included landing 50 per cent. of the catch in the United Kingdom for all UK-registered vessels. However, that was one of several conditions because, as the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, some UK vessels want the freedom to land wherever they like, and that includes the European market, which is an extremely important export market for his constituents. In Spain alone, it amounts to about 60 million for the south-west.
Mr. Steen: I am most grateful to the Minister, but there must be something that we can do to ensure that the fish that are landed in Britain are processed in Britain. I do not know how the hon. Gentleman can make such arrangements, but with his creative imagination and commitment to the fishing industry, I am sure that he and his officials could devise a fruitful and attractive scheme to deal with such a problem.
I welcome the opportunity to make a modest and short contribution to the debate. The procedures on bringing fish into the UK are full of red tape and made difficult for no apparent reason. The importation of fish is of prime importance, given that the diminishing stocks available of the relevant species in the United Kingdom make sourcing more difficult. Import tariffs need to be considered because if we cannot sustain our own needs from within the United Kingdom, it seems ridiculous to have to put trade tariffs on the necessary raw materials. I should be grateful to hear the Minister's response to that problem.
As for the European debate, the general feeling of the fishermen in Brixham, Dartmouth and Kingswear is that we are not playing on a level playing field. We have increased burdens of regulation on water. For example, effluent charges from our own water industry are about to hit our fishing industry, and grant funding available from Brussels through the Government seems difficult to access. Passing funding to regional sectors might help alleviate the problem. Fishermen feel that the Government, albeit with the best possible intentions, are allowing on-costs on the fishing industry that other European Fisheries Ministers are removing. Will the Minister comment on the on-costs on our fishing industry compared with the European fishing industry?
56WH
On profits, the United Kingdom fish processing industry is working on returns of about 1 per cent. on sales, which is a sub-economic rate. Increases in raw material prices and shortages in the supply of UK fish are creating a squeeze on margins because retailers and large customers are refusing to allow prices to be increased in line with market forces, which puts extra strain on processors.
Moneys collected from fish levies could be spent on research and funding aquaculture projects such as lobster restocking at Padstow, which is intended to restock the Devon and Cornwall shores with lobsters for the future. It needs more support. As the House may know, the 80 miles between Plymouth and Torquay has probably the most attractive crab and lobster catches in Great Britain. Stocks are being severely depleted not only by English fishermen but by French, as no quota applies to lobster or crab. I am sure that the Minister will say how much he is doing, but more needs to be done to restock those seas.
No one is more worried about conserving our fish stocks than fishermen, who are not the rapists of the sea that they are often made out to be. Of course there are a few rogues, as in any industry, but, in the main, fishermen have invested thousands of pounds in their businesses and are highly skilled business men. However, in this country, they are often viewed more as gypsies than as business men. Many have guaranteed their houses against loans of hundreds of thousands of pounds to keep their businesses afloat. They are encumbered by rules and regulations imposed by the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, who is seen as the bogeyman, while his officials are seen as aiding and abetting him, and making their lives more difficult by burdening them with ever-more overheads on their already beleaguered businesses.
Technological improvements in catching fish have had adverse effects on the fishing stock, as is only too evident from the depletion of fish stocks in Spanish waters, which I mentioned a moment ago. We want fish to become even more of a delicacy, but it will not if the present arrangements continue. We can make an accurate assessment of developments in our fishing ports only by talking to those who are directly involved and have a vested interest in ensuring that our fish stocks are conserved—fishermen, wholesalers and the related industries depend on plentiful fish supply.
Fish wholesalers depend on fishermen to keep their trade going. Charles Newman, one such wholesale fish producer in Brixham, tells me that the situation is out of their hands. Everyone seems to be controlled by someone elsewhere whose finger is not on the pulse. It is of course in fishermen's interests to keep stocks well supplied. If fishermen try to rip out the heart of the sea in which they fish with other fishermen, nothing will be left for them tomorrow. They will be unable to cover overheads, and businesses may go under. Fishermen in Brixham are deeply put out by the fact that fishermen from overseas have the right to pillage their stock when, on the whole, they themselves have tried to conserve fish stocks in their area.
Let me give a fuller picture of the state of the fishing industry. We must look at the type of vessels operating in our seas. The local fish habitat in Brixham has been besieged by a fleet of nomadic Scottish scallop dredgers that have been working non-stop around the clock in

57WH
what have, until now been the traditional grounds of the inshore fishing fleet. These huge vessels, towing gear weights eight to ten tonnes or more, are working those traditional grounds and are consequently causing great damage to the sea bed and the fish habitat. They are uncontrolled. They can bring in as much gear as they want to within the six-mile limit.
The huge scallop dredgers can use three times more gear than the local vessels, and, by the time they move on, they leave a completely wrecked sea bed in their wake. Those big fleets have been working right up to the six-mile limit—the traditional fishing ground for the small fleet of vessels operating in Brixham, which incorporates 250 inshore men. Those men are having a terrible struggle against the huge vessels, which are not subject to any legal controls. The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is doing nothing to help, although that is no surprise, because there is no regulatory framework for this type of fishing. The big vessels can tow the type of gear that no Brixham fishermen have at their disposal. Fishing vessels of 9 m beam are the norm in the local fleet in Brixham. They have to stay outside the 12-mile limit and operate on less than 22 1 kW. In contrast, the huge dredgers from Scotland are in excess of 800 to 1,000kW and, quite legally, up to 40 m of beam in length.
In only three months, the effect on the infrastructure of the sea bed has been devastating. Unless the problem is looked at immediately, the inshore grounds of Brixham and Devon will soon resemble a barren lunar landscape, and the local economy and way of life will be put at risk because of a few vessels whose owners have little interest in the future prosperity of the Devon area or, it seems, any care for the conservation of fish and the environment.
Although I have made an impassioned plea for the Scots to get off the Devon sea bed, I should add that the Scottish boats do not land their fish in Brixham. Therefore, there are a great number of fish-producing organisations and inshore fishermen who do not benefit from the fish caught by the influx of new fishermen. Kingfisher, Riddlers, Samways, South-West Fisheries, Brixham Fish Marketing, Channel Fisheries Ltd. and Paramount 21 Ltd. are all involved in fish processing and all deeply worried that the supply will be reduced. If the problem continues, and the Scots come down to Devon and plunder what Devon fishermen regard as their traditional fishing beds, may those fish processors will be unable to continue in business. I hope that the Minister will deal with that point in his winding-up speech because it is causing tremendous upset and concern, not only among the fish processors, but among the fishermen of Brixham.
Mrs. Marion Roe (in the Chair): I remind hon. Members that the winding-up speech customarily begins at 10.30 am. If all hon. Members who are seeking to catch my eye are to be called, it is necessary for hon. Members to be brief.
10.8 am
Mr. Austin Mitchell: Today, we are talking about the problems of the processing or merchant side of the fishing industry; on Monday night, we debated the problems that fuel charges were causing
58WH
the fishing industry. My hon. Friend the Minister is getting a bashing from both sides of the industry this week.
The basic cause of the processors' problems is, simply, the shortage of fish. We have a massive conservation crisis around the coast: landings are down by 40 per cent., as my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, Central (Mr. Doran) said, and there is a world shortage of quality fish. In addition, vessels are staying at sea longer to catch less fish, so the fish is not as well-preserved or of such good quality when it is landed.
I agree with the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen) that the basic cause of the problem is the common fisheries policy. The problem was foreseeable. It might be unfashionable to say so. but if we controlled our own waters, the problem would not have happened, because we would have been in a position to exercise effective control. Such controls exist in Canada and Iceland, and, although stocks are currently down in both those countries, they are rebuilding thanks to national controls. It is worth stating at the start that lack of control is the basic cause of the problem, although there are additional causes to which I will not refer because the matter is too emotive. Today's debate focuses on the consequences of the fish shortage.
The industry, especially the primary processing sector, is, rightly, calling for help from the Government. The big processors, including those based in Grimsby, also have problems, but they are problems of restructuring. Owing to the traditional ingenuity of the industry, constant upgrading, adding new value, preparing new dishes and exploitation of marketing power, big processors are in a better position to deal with the problems than the small primary processors on the quayside. The big processors have benefited from the high pound because it makes imports cheaper, but small ones have been penalised because they export the product and the high pound makes exports dearer and less competitive.
The industry has two needs. First, it needs financial help from the Government for restructuring and reorganisation. Some such help is available, but the processing side of the industry has not had grant in aid for three years. Of the £10 million available through the financial instrument for fisheries guidanceFIFG—£5 million is predicated for the south-west, which leaves £5 million for the rest of the country, for three years. That is not very much money, so financial help is needed if the industry is to face the crisis and restructure.
Secondly, burdens on the industry need to be eased. There is an accumulation of burdens and increasing costs, which press heavily on an industry that primarily comprises small producers. Traditionally, this country gold plates European regulations and there is overzealous enforcement: for example, Grimsby was in the front line in respect of waste water charges, and the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions was, to be frank, of little use in restraining the rapacity of the water companies. My hon. Friend the Minister did his best, but the Department concerned did not. At the end of a long battle, the water companies agreed to reduce the charges, but they still represented a heavy increase to an industry that was already facing difficulties. That increase is now spreading to Scotland: I have heard of a Scottish merchant who is facing a 300

59WH
per cent. increase from 1 April 2001. There should have been a national approach to the matter to ensure that charges throughout the country were equal.
That is one example of our propensity to increase charges on an industry that is already in financial difficulty and unable to sustain the burden. Another example is the veterinary inspection charges made necessary by European regulations. Those charges would have been even larger, but I persuaded the deregulation taskforce to consider the issue, and Lord Haskins secured some modifications to those regulations, thereby establishing a more sensible approach. None the less, the charges are still substantial, and Grimsby merchants feel that they are paying substantial charges to the environmental health department of North East Lincolnshire council for a service that they are not receiving—an inspection that does not take place.
Such charges for unnecessary services are especially problematic in relation to imports. There is intense competition in the fish industry throughout the world; we are dependent on imported fish and must compete for it with other nations, and prices are on the increase. Thanks to port health authorities' excessively stiff approach, cargoes are being turned away or held up by pernickety inspection procedures. The matter may not fall within the portfolio of my hon. Friend the Minister, but I hope that he will take it up with the relevant Departments. Veterinary charges for inspection are five times as high on frozen fish—which does not present a health problem—as on wet fish landed in this country. European Economic Area imports are subject to five different levels of charges, depending on whether the fish is chilled, frozen or fresh and where it is going. None of that is related to the cost of inspection of the raw material. Charges on the processor accumulate as fish is transferred from one side of processing to the other. If, as is the case in Grimsby, companies are scattered over several sites, a charge must be paid each time the fish is transferred to another factory, even if it belongs to the same company.
In relation to port health authorities, there is a constant argument about what constitutes packaging. The country of origin and establishment number has to be indicated on the packaging, but does it have to be on the outer or inner packaging? Most fish and other products are imported in two sets of packaging—inner and outer. Incomprehensibly, port health authorities insist that both must be labelled, even though the European Commission has ruled that only the outer packaging must be labelled. The Department of Health has agreed with port health authorities that it is more practical to ensure that both inner and outer packaging are marked, which is barmy. Packaging is being ripped open to inspect whether the labelling is the same inside and outside. Furthermore, port health authorities are refusing to admit products labelled with adhesive labels, even though adhesive labels are not proscribed.
In one instance, a shipment of Chinese fish marked "Quindao" instead of "China"—Quindao is the main source of Chinese fish—was turned away, even though the documents said its origin was China. Products have been returned to distant countries and arguments have taken place about whether the name of the vessel was
60WH
spelt correctly on the packaging. Russian fish, on which Grimsby is dependent, often comes in via a third-country port, and some port health authorities require certificates from the country of origin and the third country involved, which causes long delay, during which the products deteriorate. That is insane and a handicap on our industry. The industry is also subject to the burdens of the climate change levy, about which I have had a major correspondence with a Grimsby firm; packaging legislation, whereby firms are charged for the disposal of packaging; and the increase in fuel costs. The industry is in difficulties, and needs help to sustain itself.
My hon. Friend the Minister knows that there are about 12 jobs on shore for one at sea—ancillary jobs in transport, packaging and support services backing up the processing industry. That is not generous enough to the catching side—although, clearly, the balance must be swung towards supporting both. Support must be given to assist reorganisation, restructuring, and upgrading of quality and marketing techniques on the processing side. If today's debate has one outcome, I hope that it is a united industry —across England and Scotland and the whole United Kingdom—that pleads that something be done about the crisis if faces.
10.19 am
Mr. Alex Salmond: I congratulate the hon. Member for Aberdeen, Central (Mr. Doran) on securing this debate. The hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen) was anxious about contributions from Scottish Members. If he were a Member of the Scottish Parliament, which is not likely to be imminent, his speech would have been restricted to four minutes. Perhaps the Westminster Parliament would be wise to consider such an innovation for debates such as this. I shall speak for less time than the hon. Gentleman—probably for only slightly more than four minutes—so that others have the chance to contribute.
I agree with the hon. Member for Aberdeen, Central. I have been Member of Parliament for Banff and Buchan for 13 years, and the crisis now facing the processing sector is the most severe it has had to face during that time. There is a general crisis afflicting the fishing industry, but certain aspects of it are bearing down hard upon the processing sector. I shall not rehearse all the arguments, because the hon. Gentleman touched on most of them.
First is the key matter of supplies. This year alone, there have been 40 per cent. fewer landings in Scottish ports and a 47 per cent. increase in quayside prices, which have caused the processing sector severe difficulty. As the hon. Gentleman said, the industry has been unable to build up stocks for the lean times of the coming winter. Secondly, the sector has suffered the imposition of an extraordinary number of regulations—packaging regulations, veterinary charges regulations, the climate change levy, inspection charges and, crucially, the urban waste water directive, several aspects of which were introduced recklessly and irresponsibly.
Thirdly—these are matters on which the hon. Gentleman did not touch—those changes have combined with a 29 per cent. increase in transport costs during the past year. That affects Scotland in particular, as its fishing industry is export-driven: about 75 per cent.

61WH
by value of our white fish and shellfish products are exported. In addition, in the past three years, we have suffered a switch in exchange rates of 30 per cent., relative to other European currencies. Even the price of fish boxes has risen—a few years ago, the industry was pressing hard for new fish boxes, but because they are an oil-based product, the price rose last year by 40 per cent. That combination of pressures is bearing down hard on the industry.
The hon. Member for Aberdeen, Central said that I would talk about Abacus Seafoods at Mintlaw, a fish processing company in my constituency that is facing closure; it is still operating, but the staff are now working out their redundancy notice. Although 30 workers have been found temporary jobs in another company at Fraserburgh, at least 100 jobs remain at risk. It is a modern factory with a fine work force and, crucially, it has its own water processing plant, which is a huge and substantial advantage, given the charges that bear down on other companies. The loss of 100 jobs in Mintlaw, which is a rural area in central Buchan, is the equivalent of the closure of a massive steel mill or of a shipyard in a shipbuilding area, because the firm is the largest employer in an area with little alternative work. Unless we are very careful, that story will be repeated in one fish processing area after another.
I realise that the Minister does not have a magic wand. We have known each other for some years. I have spoken in just about every fishing debate in this place and I know that he has good will toward the industry, but I want to suggest some priorities to him. First, we are approaching a vital round of negotiations. The crisis is deep, not only in cod stocks but in stocks of other fish. It must be remembered, however, that a continuity of supply is essential in a mixed fishery if the processing sector—let alone the catching sector—is to remain in existence next year. Measures that are optimal for one stock are not necessarily optimal for another, or for securing future supply and, thereby, the future of fishermen and fish processing workers. The Minister understands that and is experienced enough to argue a position that offers the industry the maximum benefit over a period of time.
Another factor that has a big impact on the industry is water charges. One processor in my constituency has reduced water consumption by between 80 per cent. and 85 per cent., but that required prudent investment. Given the pressure from banks, many companies do not have the capital available to invest. Such investment, however, would help conserve water, and help the industry soften the impact of water charges. The Government can and should act—although I am of course aware that it is a matter for the Scottish Executive as well as for the Minister.
Another factor is transport charges. Two weeks ago the Chancellor announced some relief for the haulage industry. There is a strong case for more relief to be given to the fish processing sector, because of its huge dependency on transport in terms of exports and the fact that much of its production takes place in outlying areas.
We have been speaking largely about the white fish sector and to some extent about the shellfish sector, but we should also remember the pelagic sector. I am not going to rehearse all the detailed arguments that I have put to the Minister in private meetings. However, I
62WH
believe that, if the right approach is taken to regulation, our mechanism could make it easier technically for the Scottish pelagic boats to land their product in Scotland. The Scottish pelagic fleet—the tank boat fleets that are crucial to my constituency and to Orkney and Shetland, for example—could allow more landings to take place in Scotland, rather than Norway. The impact on jobs in pelagic processing would be substantial and would help to offset what I fear will be a substantial loss of jobs in the white fish sector.
I would like to refresh the Minister's memory about the eighth report of the Select Committee on Agriculture, published last August, which was generally welcomed and recognised as a positive and forward-looking report. In its key recommendation it stated:
We recommend that the Government establish for the first time a clear, agreed and coherent strategy for the management and development of the United Kingdom fishing industry, which will unite all concerned in working towards greater efficiency and competitiveness.
That was in August last year. I know that there are moves planned for January of next year, but the Minister should announce that that strategy is in place now—not that it is going to be in place, or that it might be in place in the future. The crisis is upon us, the factories are beginning to close, the outlook is not bright, and I fear that, unless the Minister can offer substantial initiatives, there will be a shakeout of, not hundreds, but thousands of jobs, and not in one constituency, but in many. We will see the decimation of a way of life for many of our constituents.
Mrs. Marion Roe (in the Chair): The official Opposition spokesman has kindly offered to forgo some of his allotted time, which will allow me to call other hon. Members to speak before the Minister winds up the debate.
10.27 am
Mr. Lawrie Quinn: I echo other hon. Members who have welcomed the opportunity to debate this important subject. I speak on behalf of the fishing communities of Whitby and Scarborough. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister knows that there are roughly 1,000 onshore jobs connected with the fishing industry in my constituency. Unlike the 40 per cent. reductions that have been experienced in Scotland, we have experienced a 14 per cent. reduction in landings. The reduction has, to some extent, been mitigated by an increase in shellfish—a direct consequence of the northwards migration of fish such as cod, which benefits shellfish.
Whitby, which is well known to many parliamentarians, is synonymous with fishing and sea fishing. I am concerned on my constituents' behalf about the socio-economic impact of reductions on such a small community. It is evident that, throughout history, the fishing industry has comprised people from the private sector who have responded positively to challenges and change. However, since the 1930s, there has been a serious decline in sea fishing, especially in Whitby and Scarborough. Partly as a response, the families involved have been inclined to diversify and find other ways of responding to immediate challenges.
I congratulate Scarborough borough council on its recent work in the spirit of diversification and finding other ways to make a living. The council recently

63WH
established the Yorkshire coast fishing forum, and I am grateful to the secretariat of that organisation, especially Mr. Duncan Amos. He took the job after a considerable period in the Canadian fishing industry and first-hand experience of its failure, which involved 45,000 jobs. I hope that he is not preparing for a similar failure here. The impact will be no less considerable in my constituency, unless concerted action is taken. I am disappointed that Yorkshire Forward, the regional development agency in Yorkshire, does not appear to recognise the importance of the issue for part of my constituency and its community. Wards in Scarborough and Whitby immediately associated with the fishing community are the top 10 unemployment wards in the region. A considerable decline has already taken place.
I think it was the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) who stated the need for some sort of national initiative. I support that approach. The problem is no less significant to my community and to those others represented in the Chamber than was the possible failure of Rover is to its local community. It is time that we, as a nation, thought about taking concerted action in the form of a taskforce. I recall the Coalfield Communities Campaign; perhaps Members of Parliament should consider setting up a fishing communities organisation to lobby in a similar way.
There has been diversification over the past 70 years in my constituency. My hon. Friend the Minister will know that the recreational side of sea fishing is now important: in Whitby alone, it contributes about £2 million annually to the local economy. I ask my hon. Friend to consider the impact that any quota arrangement would have on that vital part of the community. The matters are linked: the families involved in fish processing are the ones that are involved in recreational activities. In a community of about 16,000 people such as Whitby, £2 million would be an extremely large loss.
Fishing and Whitby go together. We want to plan for a positive future and for diversification. I commend the recent arrangements that have benefited my constituents who are involved in agriculture, and I would like to see the serious question that faces many others of my constituents given a high national profile.
10.32 am
Miss Anne Begg: I shall try to be brief and not to repeat what has been said, as I realise that time is getting on. My hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr. Quinn) suggested a fishing taskforce. That is a good idea, but I think that we can be slightly more optimistic about the fishing industry and fish processing than about other industries, such as those of steel or coal. Fish are a renewable resource and the industry is sustainable, not necessarily ailing.
I want my hon. Friend the Minister to provide some solutions to the industry's temporary problems. I know that, even with the best will in the world, he cannot magic fish into the sea. A large part of the problem is the lack of fish due to over-fishing, and there is nothing for the processors to process if the fish is not there. The amount of fish landed in Scotland is down 40 per cent.
64WH
My hon. Friend has a difficult circle to square—I do not envy him—but I want something to tide the industry over its short-term blip, until the longer-term measures being put in place take effect and the stocks begin to recover.
I believe that the brood stock in haddock in the North sea is good, but it will be three years before it can be fished. My contacts in the industry in Aberdeen say that supplies of black fish have virtually stopped, so the regulations are tightening up. Good things are happening in the industry, but their results are not yet apparent, and will not be for another two or three years. Perhaps I am overoptimistic, but I am sure that the industry is not on its last legs and that it will not die, provided we secure help for it in the short term.
My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, Central (Mr. Doran) mentioned a company in my constituency that called in the receiver a couple of weeks ago. I have had contact with several processors in my constituency that have cash flow problems and whose creditors are beginning to call in their debts. Those debts are not new, having arisen, not in the past couple of months, but in the past few years, but the creditors are beginning to lose patience. They foresee a bleak two years and that is why they are calling in their debts. That is causing great problems.
Many of the processing companies involved are primary processors, producing a product of very high quality. The company that has gone into receivership was processing fish for Marks & Spencer and Harry Ramsden's and the receiver hopes to find a buyer. However, meanwhile, half the work force have been laid off. Those are the people I worry about. What will happen to their skills in the short term? Many such skilled workers live in Torry in my constituency. Already they are looking for jobs. Perhaps we in Aberdeen are lucky, in that it is possible for them to find other jobs, but if their skills are lost, they cannot be brought back into the industry.
I recently spoke to a young woman who was looking into a job as a care assistant in an old folks home, which might pay less than a job in the fish industry. Should she go, she is unlikely to return. There is reason to worry about the skills base of the industry. If it disappears, there will be no people to do the work if fish stocks and the industry recover. Short-term help is needed to prevent the loss of the skills base and to enable people such as my constituents to remain in the industry. A strategy is needed so that what happened to the herring industry in the late 1970s does not happen to the industry based on cod and the other fish that we process in Aberdeen. When the good times come, we shall need workers with skills to take advantage of them.
10.37 pm
Sir Robert Smith: I appreciate that we are now running quite late. Not only is it important for Back Benchers to contribute, but if they are to get anything out of the debate the Minister must have time to respond, so I shall try to keep my remarks short.
I welcome the success of the hon. Member for Aberdeen, Central (Mr. Doran) in securing today's debate. I am pleased to see the Minister here. I know that he has other pressing issues to deal with, but the

65WH
subject that we are discussing affects many of our constituents and a major United Kingdom industry. I appreciate his willingness to meet representatives of the industry. Members of Parliament articulate constituents' worries, but those whose work gives them an understanding of the technicalities and problems can communicate more directly with the Minister about possible solutions.
As has already been explained, regulations are frustrating enough at any time, but in a crisis, when there are no profits, they really hurt. I hope that the Minister will try to avoid gold-plating and that he will attend to what our hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) said, especially about some aspects of imports and labelling. If it was not obvious that the city in question was in China, I wonder what the people who looked at the labels were thinking about.
If there has been a 40 per cent. drop in fish landings, the key issue to be dealt with is the shortage of fish to sustain the industry. The hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen) made the point that fishermen are not the villains of the piece. They need to fish: an individual confronted with the choice of paying the bank manager or conserving stocks has no choice but to pay the bank manager. However, in the long run, everyone will lose by that approach. We must acknowledge the way market forces are heading. The industry is highly regulated and controlled, so the Government are part of the equation and cannot avoid being part of the solution, which is sustainable fishing.
The key message that I have received from the industry is the need to decommission excess fishing capacity, to establish a retirement scheme and to secure a balance between fishing capacity and long-term sustainable fishing stocks. That will provide a stable future for the industry, which the processors can plan around.
Will the Minister explain what is happening about square mesh introduction in England? Small fish that are not caught become bigger fish the next year and can be caught then. The message from the industry is that fish do not respect boundaries, so management of the whole fishery is crucial. That is why the Government's role in Europe and their willingness to make the issue a priority in their European negotiations are so important. We need to work towards zonal management of fishing sectors, in which both those affected by the consequences of decisions and those affected by the need to sustain fishing have a say and play some part in the control of fishing policy.
The hon. Members for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) and for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr. Quinn) highlighted the need for action. Our communities and the industry they rely on may be small, but the impact on them when things go wrong is proportionally as serious as on major industries. What happened in coal, steel and farming means that the Government should not turn their back on restructuring the fishing industry. Fishermen expect, not permanent support, but a restructuring to enable them to achieve a sustainable, long-term and effective fishing industry.
Fish processors need fish and a viable catching industry needs fish processing to get its fish to the market. The Government must recognise the seriousness of the situation. Fishing may not be as sexy
66WH
or headline-grabbing as other industries, but a great deal of dedicated hard work in Europe will be necessary to deal with the problems. That work must be done now, not in a few years time. We must secure the right balance, a sustainable fishery and a sustainable fish processing sector.
10.42 am
Mr. Malcolm Moss: I congratulate the hon. Member for Aberdeen, Central (Mr. Doran) on securing today's timely debate. He has chosen a topic—fish processing—that is an important feature of his own constituency, but every speaker this morning has highlighted the essential problem of lack of fish stocks, lack of fish landings and the wider crisis of sustainability that is facing the industry.
I have two main questions for the Minister, following on from the hon. Gentleman's point about processors and the bankers. We need to hear a strong message from the Government that they want our fishing industry in all its aspects to have a viable future. There is less Government money going into the fishing industry now than at any time in the past. The Government must recognise the crisis and the Minister must approach the Treasury for funding. Why can the French receive fuel subsidies whereas our Government refuses to respond to the real problems faced by our fishermen right now? Why are decommissioning and safety grants restricted or taken away? More money must be invested in the industry. As I said, the Government must send out a strong message that they believe that our fishing industry has a future.
10.44 am
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Elliot Morley): I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss the issues and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, Central (Mr. Doran) on securing the debate and on the manner in which he made his case. Being Minister with responsibility for fisheries is not the easiest job in the Government, but one positive aspect is that hon. Members who attend fisheries debates do not come along for petty knockabout. They represent fishing constituencies, many have been involved in the industry for many years and they speak with great experience, knowledge and sincerity about an important industry. I accept the points that have been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell), the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) and others about the need to recognise that fish processing is a vital part of our food sector. It employs many thousands of people, contributes to national GDP, it is important for regional employment opportunities and we as a Government want to give it our full support.
I am the UK Fisheries Minister. I am pleased that hon. Members from all parts of the UK have taken part in this debate, because there is a strong interrelationship between all regions. A lot of the fish that is landed at Peterhead goes down to Grimsby and keeps the factories there going. The whole industry is important nationally, but, having said that, I recognise that there are important regional elements. I work with my colleagues in the Scottish Executive. I pay tribute to

67WH
my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) for his work as part of the UK team. Rhona Brankin has now replaced him: she has already met with industry representatives, and I know that she understands their concerns and the importance of the industry in Scotland, which are matters for the Scottish Administration.
One way to help the industry involves the regional dimension, as my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr. Quinn) pointed out. The regional development agencies in England will play an important role, as will the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly, in delivering support to their industries. We have given an undertaking to the Agriculture Committee that we will develop a fishing strategy; we are consulting now and we hope to bring it forward as quickly as possible. My officials have invited the Fish Industry Forum and the Sea Fish Industry Authority to take the lead in drafting the strategy by January. That will provide a basis for broader consultation with the industry. It is clearly sensible for the industry to take a prime role in putting that strategy together—people have to be involved and it takes a bit of time, but I recognise the importance of the issue. I am also aware that the Scottish Executive is drafting its own strategy in consultation with the industry.
There are back-up funds that we can offer the industry. The financial instrument of fisheries guidance is providing £6 million over the next three years in England, and there are funds available for Scotland within that scheme. The scheme will provide support for capital investment in the fish processing sector; it will include marketing and processing grants and options to improve fish quality on both the catching and the processing sides. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg) made a valid point, which is that the value of the processing side can be increased by concentrating a bit more on the quality side.
My hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby talked about the funds that are available, but we must bear in mind that there are funds from different agencies and different options. I mentioned the regional development agencies for England. Also coming on stream is the new English rural development programme, which will include both marketing and processing grants. Fishing is especially important in isolated areas, and the rural enterprise scheme can make capital grants for marketing and processing.
There is a range of opportunities for financial support for the industry, including for restructuring, but an operating subsidy for the processing sector would be against state aid rules and it would not resolve structural problems. The regional development agencies have funds for training and retraining, and a regional approach is crucial, as is the Government's national framework of grants from structural funds.
As hon. Members have said, the bottom line is the shortage of supplies—especially of cod—which creates problems for the processing industry. The Government intervened to secure Russian landings into the United Kingdom and I had talks with my opposite number in Iceland to ensure that we secure the supplies needed by
68WH
our processing industry. The processing sector has always relied more on imported fish from third countries than on fish landed in the UK.
The processing industry has expanded considerably to supply quality, value-added, prepared foods. There are good new markets for the processing sector—for example, to supply fresh, quality fish for restaurants—but there must be fish to supply those markets. Therefore, we are taking action to develop a more sustainable fisheries policy and introducing recovery plans, such as that for cod in the Irish sea.
I accept the point made by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan that the North sea is a mixed fishery and that some of the proposals for recovery, such as one-year bans or tie-ups, which will affect supply and have knock-on effects on shore jobs, will not necessarily work in mixed fisheries. The matter is being discussed with the European Commission and we emphasise that there should be a range of options for cod recovery in the North sea.
We pressed for cuts in import tariffs—a matter that was raised by the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen). I can tell him that the duty on cod will be reduced from 12 per cent. to 3 per cent. next year. That will significantly reduce the cost of imported raw materials, which will be of considerable help to the processing sector.
Conservation measures are needed for shellfish and we shall introduce a licensing scheme for shellfish, including scallops, although I recognise that we must be careful about changes in fishing patterns. Fishing is a dynamic industry and regulations must be enforced fairly and effectively. I had the impression that the hon. Gentleman thought that regulations were bad for fishermen in his constituency, but good for Scottish fishermen—he was keen on the enforcement of regulations for the Scots, but felt that it placed a burden on local fishermen. However, some of his constituents have been using gear such as French dredges, a very bad method of fishing for scallops, which causes me great concern.
I believe in fair enforcement in respect of all who fish in our waters, wherever they come from, even though that may not make me the most popular person in the fishing industry. Some of the industry's previous problems, including lack of enforcement and black fish landings, have mostly been squeezed out of the system, but they had already done great damage.
We want improvements in quality, and I accept the point made about on-costs and waste water charges. The negotiated agreement between the processing industry and the water companies in Grimsby is a model for other sectors of the industry and other parts of the country. A balance must be struck between the need for hygiene to protect consumers and acceptance of the principle that the polluter pays for pollution.
My hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby has years of experience of the industry and is one of its greatest advocates. I am concerned to hear about petty regulations on labelling and I ask him to write to me about that. I would be only too pleased to pursue the matter to ensure that a more sensible approach is adopted.
Mr. Salmond: The Minister—whom I have heard speak many times—is being his usual sensible, informed

69WH
and reasonable self and it is difficult to dislike, let alone disagree with him. The case that I am not alone in making is that the ingredients exist to generate a full-scale crisis in the processing sector. The Minister may find himself overtaken by that crisis, as we all will when our constituencies suffer a blizzard of closures. Will he acknowledge the scale of the potential problem? In the face of the threat to our constituents, sensible and informed logic is perhaps more important than niceness and reasonableness.
Mr. Morley: I accept the hon. Gentleman's point about the potential pressure on the fish processing industry. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South said that we should not exaggerate by presenting the fish processing industry as being on the verge of collapse, but I accept that it has problems. In the light of the restructuring that the catching side may have to undergo, particularly in regard to recovery plans, we may have to reconsider certain matter, for example, the amount of funding available for decommissioning. I remain open to changing that and am prepared to make a case for it if necessary.
However, funds are available now and new funds are coming on stream in April, some of which are directed towards the processing industry, which I am sure will not be slow to consider what use it can make of them. I have written to hon. Members representing areas where fish processing is important, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby. He is already ahead of the game: he has taken up the issue by asking what the future holds for the industry, explaining that funds are available and that the processing sector should be thinking about how it can help, particularly through investment in machinery plant and infrastructure. I am also keen to get more pelagic landings into the UK. That, too, will involve investment in processing infrastructure, some of which may qualify for grant assistance. If we can get more landings into the UK, that is all to the good.
Sir Robert Smith: Will the Minister give way on the issue of square-mesh panels?
Mr. Morley: I have only 3 minutes, but I intend to address that point. Our proposals on square-mesh
70WH
panels are awaiting clearance from the Commission. There has been a delay, for which I apologise, but we intend to have those important regulations—of which I am a firm supporter—operational as quickly as possible in English waters.
I hope that I have covered most of the other points that have been raised, but if hon. Members feel that there are issues that I have not addressed—such as the difficult issue of the reduction of transport costs, I am happy to do so outside the Chamber. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor has taken action, especially in respect of vehicle excise duty, which for diesel vehicles has been cut considerably. I suspect that, like all things, the cost of fuel goes in cycles: we are at a peak of the cycle, as there is maximum demand for heating oil in winter, which affects the price of diesel, but as we go into the spring, we will see a notable fall in prices, which will have a beneficial knock-on effect on the industry.
On-costs relating to waste water and the climate change levy were mentioned. The Government have offered the industry an 80 per cent. rebate in the climate change levy. Our energy targets are not unreasonable and the processing sector should be able to achieve them — indeed, the fish processing industry will enjoy overall savings if it meets the target. In addition, under the climate change levy, there will be a reduction in employment taxes; that will be beneficial to the labour-intensive processing industry. While those extra costs present difficulties, they are important in terms of pollution control and health and safety and thereby benefit the industry. Hon. Members should bear in mind that our business taxes and social taxes are the lowest in Europe.
I assure all hon. Members who have spoken that the Government take their points seriously and we will follow them up. I am happy to meet representatives of the processing industry to see what we can do by working together nationally, regionally and locally to help that important industry.
Mrs. Marion Roe (in the Chair): Order. I remind hon. Members that the House has decided that members of the Chairmen's Panel who take the Chair in Westminster Hall should be addressed by name. I should be addressed as Mrs. Roe.

European Union Charter of Fundamental Rights
11 am
Mr. Win Griffiths: It is a pleasure to debate again the European Union charter of fundamental rights; we debated it nine months ago when the process had just begun. Now, from the convention's point of view, that process has been completed. When the body met for the first time before Christmas 1999, we were in truly uncharted territory. The mandate outlined at the Cologne European Council in June was both as clear and as ambiguous as the members of the body wanted it to be. The large number of members of the body—62 was the figure decided at Tampere in the October European Council—threatened to make it unworkable. It was feared that the talking could become interminable, with wide-ranging debate and no decisions.
Attending the first meeting in December 1999, I felt that the European Councils of Cologne and Tampere had presented us with a more than considerable challenge by asking us to complete a draft charter for the Council by December 2000. Within three months, even that challenging timetable was speeded up, with talk of the draft being ready by the end of July. With some additional meetings and with some two-day meetings turning into three-day sessions, a preliminary draft text, known as convent 45, was produced before the summer break.
Throughout the process, the secretariat and praesidium of the convention—as the body quickly agreed to call itself—had a mighty logistical task on its hands. The pre-preliminary draft text, known as convents 28 and 34, was subject to more than 1,000 amendments—27 of which were mine—so it was a miracle that convent 45 was produced by the end of July. The process had thus reached a sufficiently advanced stage for all the substantive issues to have been well aired and negotiating positions made plain. A summer of hectic activity behind the scenes was assured to fine tune the July text and find a form of words to clarify the ambiguities that many convention members saw in the Cologne mandate when the convention met again in September and October.
For me, the Cologne mandate was clear. The convention was directed to consolidate in a charter the fundamental rights applicable at European Union level, so that those rights themselves and their overriding importance were clear to the Union's citizens. The mandate also directed us to the sources for setting out those rights. The charter was to be based on the European convention on human rights, the constitutional traditions of member states and general principles of Community law.
In addition, we were told to include
economic and social rights as contained in the European Social Charter and the Community Charter of Fundamental Social Rights of Workers (Article 136 TEC), insofar as they do not merely establish objectives for action by the Union.
The latter point was at the centre of the political debate about which economic and social rights should be included in the charter and how they should be expressed. In the economic and social sector, how was the judgment to be made between a fundamental right
72WH
and an objective for action by the Union? The temptation for progressive political opinion was simply to accept that the European social charter and the Community charter should be regarded as statements of fundamental rights without any attempt to decide which were desirable political objectives.
The argument continued that, as we moved into a new century and prepared for a further expansion of the EU, a wider all-embracing view of the charter was needed. The strongest, though not the only, protagonists of that view were most of the 16 Members of the European Parliament who were on the convention. They saw, and still see, the charter as an opportunity to strengthen the European Union and to enhance the rights of its citizens and the role of the European Parliament. To be fair to the MEP convention members, however, some were willing to distinguish between fundamental social and economic rights and desirable political objectives for the European Union and its member states.
There were also a few who viewed the exercise as an opportunity to regain for member states some of the sovereignty that they have pooled within the European Union. The majority, however, wanted a charter that would at least be a protocol of the treaty and seen to be a legally binding document that covers all aspects of European Union activity, including common foreign and security policy, justice and home affairs and institutions such as Europol. Of the elected members of the convention, the European Parliament had the most opportunity, time and resources to develop an institutional view of the charter. In drawing up its report on the charter with rapporteurs Voggenhuber and Duff, at least six of its committees provided opinions for the committee on constitutional affairs.
The 30 members of the convention representing national Parliaments broadly fell either into the maximalist view of the majority of European Parliament Members or what I describe as the discerning view—because I took it—on social and economic rights for inclusion in the charter. Indeed, it would be unfair to define rigid blocks of opinion, particularly in the latter group, non-maximalist Members, such as myself, wanted rights to be included—for children and minorities, for example—that possibly strayed beyond a strict interpretation of the Cologne mandate. However, I think that the charter has satisfied such demands for children, if not so much for minorities.
The nature of the charter is critically important. The Cologne Council decision stated that the charter was not to be a legally binding document, although it raised the possibility of the Council making it so at a later date. Despite there being a significant number of convention members who would have liked the charter to be legally binding rather than a declaratory document, they were on the whole content to leave the European Council to make a decision as laid down in Cologne. That has meant, however, and not unreasonably so, that the convention, in its deliberations on the charter, sought to draw it up in such a way as to facilitate the process for it to become legally binding. I have always considered that that argument had more to do with the process than the principle. Even though the charter was not meant to be legally binding immediately, the fact that its purpose was to make existing rights more evident and their overriding importance and relevance more visible

73WH
means that European Union citizens and residents will have legal redress against the Commission and member states when creating or implementing Community law.
Lord Goldsmith, the representative of the British Government, came forward with a proposal at an early stage to link the charter rights clearly with their legal source in a single document with two parts: part A stating the rights, and part B stating their legal source. During the early stages of the convention discussions, there seemed to be sufficient agreement to proceed along those lines, although several members of the maximalist school expressed strong reservations. The preparatory versions up to what were known as convents 28 and 34 of the charter had a two-part style, but not that envisaged by Lord Goldsmith. Perhaps that was a typical euro-compromise.
Late in the day, after the European Council in Feira, rumours began to circulate that the incoming French presidency wanted to use the charter process to develop the concept of a European social model. That was given form in the Braibant-Meyer proposals on social and economic rights—Braibant being the representative of the French Government and Meyer, the representative of the Bundestag.
Progressive opinion had no problem with the sentiments expressed, but doubts arose from two different angles. On the one hand, to be enforceable, any rights in the charter must have a legal base in the European convention on human rights, Community or national law, or international conventions signed by member states. On the other hand, convention members from states such as Sweden, which has well-developed progressive social and economic rights legislation, wanted to be reassured that, if such rights were included in the charter, the European Court of Justice could not use the charter as guidance and make decisions that would undermine national legislation in areas in which Community law was not strictly applicable.
Article 46 of the pre-preliminary draft charter—known as convent 34—provided reassurance on that latter point. It stated that the charter did not establish any new competences or modify existing ones, as defined in the treaties. Furthermore, the charter was addressed to the institutions and bodies of the European Union and the member states exclusively within the scope of the treaties and Community law. Those proposals were further developed in articles 49 and 50 of convent 45, the preliminary draft text. Those articles should reassure people, whatever their thoughts on the nature of the charter, because they place the charter within the context of Community competences. Of course, the very existence of such reassurances provides rabid anti-European Union scaremongers with the opportunity to raise unfounded fears about a back-door European Union takeover of all aspects of member state law and competences.
Over the past 11 months, I have been struck by how the British press has portrayed the charter as a nascent European constitution under which Governments will lose their powers and citizens their democratic rights and historic freedoms. That argument has been supported with quotes from the minorities at each end of the European spectrum.
Mr. Christopher Gill: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman would describe the Foreign
74WH
Minister of Belgium as a member of the minority spectrum. When he was asked in a recent interview how much importance he attached to the European charter of fundamental rights, he replied:
It is an essential document that foreshadows the future European Constitution we are hoping for.
Will the hon. Gentleman comment on that quote in the light of his previous remarks?
Mr. Griffiths: Yes, it is easy to comment. One has only to consider the position of the entire Council and the 62 members of the convention to conclude that that is a minority view and at one end of the spectrum. If it were not, the charter would have come to us in a different form and there would have been a majority in support of making it a directly legally binding document. That is not the situation. We must face the fact that, however distinguished the Belgian Foreign Minister, he is part of a minority.
Mr. Bercow: Further to the observation made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill), I take it that the hon. Gentleman regards Mr. Prodi, the President of the European Commission, as representative of a minority. He said that the Commission was behaving, step by step, like a growing Government. In support of the hon. Gentleman's thesis, and in reflecting on the justiciability of the charter, what assessment has he made of article 6 (2) of the Maastricht treaty?
Mr. Griffiths: I will refer to article 6 (2) of that treaty. The charter in its present form, as currently agreed by the Council, will not be a directly justiciable document. My thesis is that each article of the charter has a legal base, as shown, in convent 49; I will return to that matter.
On the one hand, there is the federalist spectrum, which represents a minority view. However distinguished the people who propound that view, one cannot escape the fact that it is a minority view. Otherwise, we would have a different charter. At the other end of the spectrum is the nation-statist, who vows to fight to the end the perceived threat. The implication was also that all this was happening in dark corners in Brussels, where members of the British media had to use every kind of investigative subterfuge to bring the charter process into the light of day. The truth is that all of the convention proceedings—every meeting, every minute and every second—were open to the public. Not a single private session took place. In addition, every document issued by the convention appeared on the charter website. In fact, one newspaper, The Times, published the preliminary draft charter with banner headlines about how it had discovered a secret plot. The charter was there for anybody to see. It may be that the British press did not always follow the charter in detail—only reporting on it from time to time—but that was not the fault of the charter and its proceedings. Everything was open to the public.
I strongly believe that the outcome of the convention is a charter emphasising the legal protections and democratic rights of individual European Union citizens and residents, the responsibilities of EU institutions, bodies and member state Governments to uphold the law and provide good administration, and

75WH
the responsibilities of individuals to uphold the ethos of the charter in their respect for the dignity of other people, human rights, democracy and the rule of law. I am sure that all hon. Members would agree with that. We should not get stuck on the wilder shores where the charter is seen as a nascent European constitution. The critical debate is on the realities of creating practical processes to give effect to the charter in promoting individual and institutional rights and responsibilities in the context of the European Union.
One area of critical concern is the way in which the European convention on human rights will fit into the charter and consistency be maintained in judgments made by the European Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights on issues that are common to the new charter of fundamental rights and the European convention on human rights, with its half century of case law determining levels of protection. The charter of fundamental human rights must be clear on the role of the European convention on human rights in providing minimum levels of protection. It must also ensure that the obligations of EU institutions and bodies are consistent with those of its member states.
Mr. Gill: The hon. Gentleman will be aware of what is stated in the preamble to the charter. Is it not significant that, in the preamble, references to national domestic law or statute concerning rights are omitted? However, article 9 of the charter, which refers to the right to marry, states that that should be guaranteed in accordance with national laws, which are not even mentioned in the preamble.
Mr. Griffiths: Although there is no specific reference to national law in the preamble, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will confirm that the charter reaffirms, with due regard for the powers and tasks of the EU and the principle of subsidiarity, the rights as they result in particular from constitutional traditions and international obligations common to member states. Although it does not refer to national law, it refers to constitutional traditions and the principle of subsidiarity, which, as everyone knows, is about the implementation of national law.
Mr. Bercow: I am afraid that resting on subsidiarity is not acceptable. Is the hon. Gentleman not aware of the protocol on the application of principles of subsidiarity and proportionality in the treaty of Amsterdam? It states:
The application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality shall respect the general provisions and objectives of the Treaty, particularly as regards the maintaining in full of the acquis communautaire and the institutional balance…it shall not affect the principles developed by the Court of Justice regarding a relationship between national and Community law, and it should take into account article F(4) of the Treaty on European Union, according to which "the Union shall provide itself with the means necessary to attain its objectives and carry through its policies."
It is game, set and match for justiciability.
Mr. Griffiths: Despite that impressive quotation from the treaty, I beg to differ. At specific points, the charter recognises that the European Union does not have
76WH
competence to become directly involved in how laws are implemented in member states. That is why at specific points the charter refers to the fact that the right is determined by how it is implemented by national law. No court can undermine that.
Although member states of the European Union are signatories to the ECHR, the Commission is not. The charter must, therefore, make provision to deal with inconsistencies that could arise with charges of a two-tier system of protection developing between Strasbourg and Luxembourg 0—between Council of Europe members that are in the European Union and those that are not.
The French Government has led the argument against the need to refer to ECHR case law in the charter, while the British Government has been in the vanguard of those arguing for such a reference. The ideal solution would be to allow the Commission to become a signatory to the ECHR, but that presents political and legal difficulties. The European Court of Justice ruled in 1994 that the Commission did not have the legal standing to sign up to the ECHR. On the political point, it also raised issues about the potential statehood of the Commission and about the Community assuming the same identity as a state, so that was off the agenda.
The Council of Europe observers on the convention, Marc Fishbach and Hans Christian Kruger, have expressed their satisfaction with the draft charter as approved at the informal European Council session at Biarritz on 14 October. However, they rightly point out the critical importance of the way in which charter rights will be applied by the European Court of Justice to avoid establishing two different levels of rights. Their solution—that the Strasbourg court interprets European convention rights in the charter—seems to be a reasonable way of maintaining consistency in the field.
Mr. Gill: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way yet again; he is very patient. Does he, as a Member of this Parliament, share my anxiety that we are moving towards judge-driven law rather than law made by the representatives of the people in the Parliaments to which they are elected?
Mr. Griffiths: No, I do not believe that that is a danger. Parliaments still make the law; judges interpret it. If at any point a Parliament should feel that, whoops, perhaps it did not specify a matter clearly enough for that matter to be properly interpreted, it has the right to change its law. Most modern democracies have a system of judicial review, which is stronger in some countries than in others. In Britain, judicial review is possible of the application of laws by the Government or local authorities, for example. I therefore do not perceive that as a danger.
Mr. Bercow: I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who has been extraordinarily generous in giving way. Earlier, he was quizzical about the contents of article 6 (2) of the treaty of Maastricht, to which I referred. Given that that article suggests that the charter's justiciability derives from the general principles of Community law, and that those take precedence over British law, I do not understand, and I should be grateful if he would explain, how he can dispute the point about justiciability.
Mr. Griffiths: There is a difference in interpretation. I do not believe that any one part of the sources of the charter's rights takes precedence over another source. The charter may state that a certain right could have a base in any one of several documents. However, if it states that a right was implemented under national law, that stands fast. I shall refer later to one or two relevant examples. It is a reasonable way in which to maintain consistency.
Debate within the convention was constructive and good-natured. The occasions were few when tempers were aroused and stand-offs threatened. That was to the credit of its members and the presidency in the chair, especially of President Herzog, the former President of Germany, who chaired the meetings superbly. There was a period when, unfortunately, he was absent because he had a slight stroke, and then his wife died tragically. However, we were still aware that he was exercising a calming influence behind the scenes.
We now have a charter that is a statement of rights, responsibilities and duties addressed to the institutions and bodies of the European Union with due regard to the principle of subsidiarity and to member states when they implement Union law. It does not establish a new power or task for the Community or the European Union, or modify powers or tasks defined under the treaties. However, it achieves the purpose of the Cologne mandate of making the rights of citizens and residents more clear. Convent 50, in its second revised form, dated 9 November is the current English version to which hon. Members can refer. It needs to be read alongside convent 49, which can be regarded as the Goldsmith version, with a text of explanations directing the citizen to the legal base for each right.
For example, article 10 on freedom of thought, conscience and religion is based on article 9 of the European convention on human rights. Article 32, the prohibition of child labour and protection of young people at work, is based on directive 94/33/EC, article 7 of the European social charter and points 20 to 23 of the Community charter of the fundamental social rights of workers. Article 28, the right to trades union collective bargaining and action, is based on article 11 of the ECHR, article 6 of the European social charter, points 12 to 14 of the Community charter of the fundamental social rights of workers, and, because the right to strike is defined differently in member states, national law as laid down on that subject.
It would be tempting to consider the legal base for each article and then discuss the possible effectiveness of any action that might be taken. I believe that the picture is more clear for some articles than for others, but that would be for lawyers to decide in building up a case.
The charter is not a proto-European constitution. It is, however, a step forward for citizens and residents of the European Union. It ensures that both European and national law concerned with the development and implementation of EU policies does not infringe their fundamental rights and that redress is available should that happen. I remain amazed that the clearly stated purpose of the charter can be traduced by anyone as a plot to create a European super-state. The charter should be welcomed without exception.
11.28 am
Mr. David Chidgey: As a member of the United Kingdom delegation to the convention, I should like to draw attention to the accuracy with which the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) has recorded the events. He outlined them very clearly. However, having listened to some of the interventions that have been made in this and previous debates on the charter, I have the impression that some hon. Members think that we do not need the charter and that it is just another exercise in bureaucracy and red tape and control by Brussels of our own affairs. How does that sit with the constant call for more clarity in the European Union, a clearer statement of the rights and responsibilities of nation states to their citizens and a clear description of the rights, responsibilities and limitations of the EU institutions?
Mr. Gill: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Chidgey: No, I shall not give way just now.
We also need a clear understanding of the rights of individual citizens. It seems rather paradoxical that many of those who question most avidly—and, perhaps, rabidly — the relevance of the charter also call for more clarity.
Mr. Gill: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Chidgey: No, we have heard enough for the moment.
Mr. Gill: This is a debate.
Mr. Chidgey: No.
It seems that the same people who question the validity of the charter also ask for more clarity in the EU, a clearer statement of rights and responsibilities and, most important, a clearly stated limitation on the EU institutions. That surely is the purpose of the charter.
I shall add to the debate my reflections about the meetings of the convention in Brussels. It was an interesting experience to be a member of the UK parliamentary delegation to the convention that drafted the charter. As the hon. Member for Bridgend said, the convention was drawn from widely different parts of the European political establishment and included delegates from the Governments of EU member states and from the well-organised European Parliament, and Members of Parliament from the various states of the EU, including our own.
The process of drafting and amending the charter was far removed from the procedures followed in this House. There is no ruling party with a built-in majority, so we did not have to put up with anyone steamrollering through ill-thought-out clauses—something that we have learned to live with here. Progress could be made only through consensus. Strange and unknown as it may have been to members of the UK delegation, a climate of debate instead of dictatorship by majority prevailed. Sometimes extreme political groupings tried to use the charter to advance their political philosophies, but the power of logic, sound argument and persuasion was the most convincing and invariably won the day.

79WH
The UK delegation often led the way in ensuring that the charter was a triumph of principle and sound practice over the bizarre and extreme—of which we have heard a good example this morning. We should recall that the convention universally recognised the major contribution made by the UK in the drafting of the charter. That gave me and, I hope, many others a clear demonstration of the fact that when we engage in Europe we can play a leading role, which is welcomed by other member states.
The charter now goes forward to the intergovernmental conference. Instead of exercising old prejudices, we should be debating that move. The charter is likely to be proclaimed by the heads of state at the intergovernmental conference in Nice. I am not quite sure what that means; it may be a means not of accepting it in general but of putting it to one side. We need to consider whether the charter should become binding, but I believe that it should.
We have the opportunity this morning to establish how the charter could be used to benefit the citizens of Europe. Should it be incorporated into the EU treaties? Should it become justiciable within the European and national courts of law? It is intended to offer protection to the citizens of Europe from the abuses and excesses of EU agencies that the official Opposition party seems so concerned about. I and my colleagues would argue for a rational approach.
We should not necessarily be afraid that the charter will pave the way to a constitution for the European Union. That outcome may be some years away, provided that we do not try to form a constitution that implies the creation of a European state. I understand that fear. I understand the big beasties that the Opposition see around every corner, but that does not mean that we should not engage in the debate about how best to protect the citizens of Europe. I would like to see not a proper constitution, which would imply the creation of a European state, but a statute of limitations on the competencies and powers of the European Union. It could clearly define and limit the role of EU agencies. It is important that we state the rights of the individual citizen of every nation and the means by which rights can be protected and preserved, a point touched on in the opening remarks made by the hon. Member for Bridgend.
The European Union is now working to a programme of accession for a further six states or more to join by 2004. I would like the Minister to commit to requiring those states to satisfy their obligations under not only the European Union treaties but the charter of fundamental rights.
11.35 am
Mr. Kevin McNamara: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) on his fine exposition of the situation and of how we arrived at the charter. It is the second time that we have had the benefit of his wisdom and experience. He rendered clear what the British press has often seen as murky and made a powerful speech enunciating what had been achieved and the congratulations due to the British delegation in the negotiations.
80WH
I want to raise several matters contained in the charter. One of the weaknesses of arriving at documents in the current manner is that, for example, we do not have an opportunity to try to amend them. That is a weakness of international treaties and I understand it.
Mr. Win Griffiths: I tried to secure a debate in Westminster Hall in July, but the way of the world and the luck of the draw are such that I did not succeed. A debate then would have enabled people to make observations that I could have taken to the September session.
Mr. McNamara: I do not criticise my hon. Friend, but the system means that we parliamentarians do not have the opportunity to do so; we have to depend on him to be a postman for us and find a letterbox in which to post our observations. That was not possible on this occasion.
Several matters concern me about the charter, but first I should say how much I welcome articles 1 to 4. They are on human dignity, something that is under a great deal of attack. The first three state:
Human dignity is inviolable. It must be respected and protected…Everyone has the right to life…No one shall be condemned to the death penalty, or executed.
Those are firm statements. It is to the credit of the Council of Europe that Europe became a capital punishment-free zone this year for all civil offences and for all military offences in many countries as well. That is to be welcomed.
Mr. Bercow: The hon. Gentleman may be pleased to know that I strongly agree on that point. However, I do not believe that signing up to the abolition of the death penalty now should preclude the House considering the issue again. He was vocal during the passage of the Bill that became the Human Rights Act 1998. Is it his understanding that its incorporation and that of the charter would mean that the House of Commons was not permitted to consider the death penalty again?
Mr. McNamara: The House of Commons would not he prevented from considering it; the House of Commons can consider anything, even whether the moon is made of green cheese. It is certainly true that if we took positive action, we should have to withdraw from the Council of Europe and, presumably, if the charter were incorporated in the fundamental treaties of the Community, from the Community too. That was one reason for my strongly urging, against the Government's advice, that we should incorporate protocol 5 of the European charter on the death penalty into the Act that establishes the convention. It would make it as difficult as possible for the death penalty to be reintroduced in this country. Happily, on a free vote, many colleagues supported that argument.
I welcome the charter, but I am interested in interpretation, on issues such as cloning and euthanasia. I take what might be regarded as a fundamentalist approach to those matters. In any event, they will be important. Equality and non-discrimination will also

81WH
require attention. Again, I welcome current thinking on those matters, but several exceptions exist in the sphere of non-discrimination. With respect to women the draft charter states:
The principle of equality shall not prevent the maintenance or adoption of measures providing for specific advantages in favour of the under-represented sex.
In the article dealing with integration of persons with disabilities, it states:
The Union recognises and respects the right of persons with disabilities to benefit from measures designed to ensure their independence, social and occupational integration and participation in the life of the community.
I welcome both those provisions and the general principle that there should be no discrimination, but those are not the only forms of discrimination. It is hard to see how the present articles would allow affirmative action programmes to be started to help people who had suffered discrimination on grounds of colour, religion or gender, or to raise their living standards or establish positive social programmes to provide them with advantages that they would otherwise lack. Specifying two exemptions—women and disabled people—to the established general principle might make it difficult to create special programmes to help, for example, black people in this country, Turks in Germany or Algerians in France. I regard that as a weakness in the charter.
Article 23 also states:
Equality between men and women must be ensured in all areas, including employment. work and pay.
However, it does not include education. A general reference to education is made elsewhere in the document, but without equality in education for men and women, opportunities for women could be severely limited. I am surprised that the lady members of the Assembly did not notice that point.
Mr. Griffiths: My hon. Friend has raised an interesting question, but I wonder if he could explore it further. I do not think that anyone could claim that girls are disadvantaged in education in comparison with boys, to judge by entry to universities and medical schools —more women than men are entering medical schools at present. For those who work in education, equality of opportunity and advancement would surely be covered by the general reference to employment. What specific weaknesses has my hon. Friend identified?
Mr. McNamara: I am well aware of the situation in my country, but my hon. Friend will know that other countries want access to the Community. They would presumably in due course be governed by the principles in the charter. Some of them might have different traditions governing the way in which they perceive women. I am glad that my hon. Friend accepts that point. It would be interesting to hear my hon. Friend the Minister's observations on that matter.
On justiciability, one of the major concerns raised in debates in the House and in the Council of Europe—I should explain that I am a member of the human rights sub-committee of that council—has been having a two-tier system of justice, one for members of the Community and another for the rest of Europe. It is of the utmost importance that the accession of the Community to the European convention be resolved.
82WH
I understand the decision of the European Court of Justice that because the Community is not a state per se it cannot sign up to the European convention. I accept that, but it should not be beyond the bounds of human ingenuity for the European Union and the member states of the Council of Europe to amend the convention to enable the EU to sign up to it. That should be done without giving the Union any of the appurtenances of statehood, which might cause consternation to those sitting on my right and my extreme right.
Such a course of action should be carefully examined, as it would overcome the problem of potentially dichotomous judgments or judgments going in opposite directions from the same basis of interpretation within the European Union. That should be seriously addressed. I say that for another reason, because we not only have the charter of fundamental rights of the European Union and the European convention, we also have a plethora of charters springing up all over Europe. They include the convention of human rights and fundamental freedoms of the Commonwealth of Independent States—that is, those countries that are dominated by Russia. Those countries have proposals that in many ways lack the strengths of the European convention. If we ended up with a justiciable charter of fundamental rights of the European Union, a general one for the rest of Europe, and then a further, weaker one for the CIS states, we would be in a grave position, with conflicting ideas, jurisdictions and decisions. That being the case, it is of the utmost importance that the Community and the Council of Europe get together to find some way in which the convention can be amended so that the Community can join.
Finally, I would be grateful if we could be told precisely what will happen at Nice when the matter is discussed. When an announcement is made from the top of the casino, will we be told that our aspirations to gather together the rights, duties and responsibilities of Governments and individuals in the Community are merely aspirations? Some people have said that the charter will have an indirect persuasion on the powers of the Luxembourg court, being a document to which it may refer under the Maastricht treaty. That treaty contains certain human rights provisions, and some of us were opposed to their inclusion because of possible conflict with the Council of Europe, which could be dangerous.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to answer some of those questions and, again, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend for securing a debate on this matter.
11.49 am
Mr. Christopher Gill: I, too, pay tribute to the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) for securing this debate. I am mindful that he initiated another earlier in the year, and both have been helpful in exploring exactly what is intended with respect to the European Union charter of fundamental rights. Having paid tribute to him, however, I express my great disappointment that the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey) was not prepared to give way. He made certain assertions, but refused to take any interventions. He rightly said that there was some doubt about the purpose behind the charter of fundamental rights and went on to explain how he envisaged it. His refusal to

83WH
accept any interventions precluded other views from being expressed. I cited the Belgian Foreign Minister earlier, but the hon. Gentleman should be aware that the French Minister for European Affairs also recently said:
The discussion on the Charter's future is closely related to the discussion…to provide the European Union with a Constitution… Post Nice…there is the issue of transforming the treaties into a single constitution.
The hon. Gentleman should have given way to allow me to express that point.
We are not confused by intention, and nor do we want to be, but we hear conflicting signals from all quarters, including from senior politicians. We are conscious of the spat in our own country, in which the Foreign Secretary has told the Chancellor, "You are not Prime Minister yet", and that he is the boss. What the Foreign Secretary says about negotiations on the treaty of Nice is what counts, and he does not want any interference from the Treasury. It is not possible simply to discount what the Foreign Minister of Belgium or the French Minister for European Affairs say. They are senior politicians with a responsible attitude towards these matters. I must draw the Chamber's attention to the fact that our own Minister for Europe described the charter as the Beano.
Mr. McNamara: I am trying to follow the hon. Gentleman's argument, but it is difficult. We have this treaty, that treaty, this treaty and another treaty: what is wrong with putting them all together? Consolidating the treaties in that way would not create a constitution.
Mr. Gill: I think that I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, but I am not the right person to answer his question. The purpose of today's debate is to find out from our own Government representative exactly what is going on. Where is it all leading us? I shall give way in a moment to the hon. Member for Bridgend, but before I do, let me pose this clear, direct, simple and straightforward question to the Minister. Is the charter of fundamental rights a prelude to a European Union constitution? Today, the Minister has an ideal opportunity to give Parliament a categorical assurance that the charter either is or is not a prelude to a European Union constitution. That would clear the air, and I would then be able to take cognisance of my own Government rather than being confused by the statements of senior politicians in other countries.
Mr. Win Griffiths: The hon. Gentleman quoted two out of 15 Foreign Ministers in the European Union. Yes, some people view the charter as a step on the road to a European constitution, but they are in a minority. On the other side of the fence, some people do not want a charter at all, but they are also in the minority. The broad spectrum of opinion in the middle wants the charter to remain as it is. As the hon. Gentleman knows, a further step towards creating a European constitution requires amendment to the treaties, to which every member of the Union would have to agree; in some member states, a referendum must be held before any agreement. We should get real about the possibility of creating a European constitution from the
84WH
charter. That will not happen or, if it does, it will happen so far into the future that it need not concern the hon. Gentleman, or me, or the next few generations.
Mr. Gill: That is all very well. I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman, who presented his case extremely well; he gave a full exposition of his involvement in bringing the charter thus far, and some background to our present position. I do not have a definitive note of what all 15 Foreign Ministers said on the subject although I know what some said, and have I quoted two. The House should be more interested in what our own Minister for Europe thinks about the subject. Does he believe that the proposal is a prelude to a European constitution? Does he want the charter to be a prelude to a European constitution? With due respect to the hon. Member for Bridgend, it is the Minister who must answer those questions.
As with so many other features of the European Union, the hon. Gentleman, trotted out the canard that we should not worry because what we fear will not happen, that "this is as far as it goes". But we have seen it all before. In the past few days, a European army has been announced, even though people continue to deny it. The world press shows how the announcement is interpreted in other European countries. For example, according to reports in Die Welt yesterday, there is no doubt in the German mind that what is proposed is a European army, yet a few months ago people denied that. They said that it was a figment of our imagination and that we must not become hysterical about it. Policies adopted by the European Union always start as a small cloud no bigger than a man's fist, but before we know where we are they becomes something quite different.
Mr. Bercow: I share my hon. Friend's disappointment at the style and the federalist stance of the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey). Is my hon. Friend aware that by contrast the excellent prospective Conservative parliamentary candidate for the Eastleigh constituency, Mr. Conor Burns, is a strong supporter of national self government? He fervently opposes the incorporation of the European charter of fundamental rights and freedoms into British law. Does my hon. Friend agree that that will make it much easier for Mr. Burns to overturn the precarious, wafer-thin, 754 majority of the hon. Member for Eastleigh?
Mr. Gill: My hon. Friend tempts me to pronounce on the electoral prospects of the Liberal Democrats at the next general election, but I do not wish to depress them unduly now, as there are other things to talk about.
Mr. McNamara: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Gill: No, I must make progress and I have already given way to the hon. Gentleman.
This is the right place and the right time to ask the Minister questions. At the back of my mind is a press report a few months ago in which the Minister for Europe said that we must have a proper debate on European matters and get all the facts into the open. The last time that we debated these matters, the Minister, although always genial, was not entirely serious. In response to serious comments, we got flip remarks such

85WH
as, "The hon. Gentleman is only demonstrating his opposition to European union." That does not answer our questions. I shall therefore repeat them. What is the need for the charter of fundamental rights? What is the motivation for it? Is it, or is it not, a prelude to a European Union constitution?
I have taken a considerable amount of the House's time. It is only fair that I should sit down now to make way for others who wish to speak, but more particularly so that there is time at the end of the debate for the Minister to address himself seriously to the questions that have been put to him.
12 noon
Mr. Mark Oaten: In February the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) provided a progress report to the House on the convention and the drafting process. I am grateful for this opportunity to revisit the issue and I congratulate the hon. Gentleman. Two things are clear. The first is the wisdom of continuing to hold Westminster Hall debates because they provide an opportunity to discuss important issues. However, I am concerned that we have to rely on the luck of the ballot to review an important piece of European policy. I concluded my contribution to that debate in February by saying that we should monitor progress carefully to ensure that the charter is implemented at a time that is appropriate to the best interests of individuals throughout Europe. It is appropriate, given that an intergovernmental conference will occur in a couple of weeks' time, to revisit some of those issues.
Ensuring that fundamental human rights are in place is a prerequisite to unlocking the potential of individuals throughout the European Community. We have heard a great deal today about articles and theories, but we have not heard much about individuals. People must be our starting point when we judge whether this is the right form of policy to have throughout Europe and what impact it has on individuals' daily lives. I find it increasingly frustrating that the media appear to be like rabbits caught in the headlights. They are obsessed that the charter is yet another step to what they describe as a superstate. Others may be happy to regard the charter as another jigsaw piece in their conspiracy theory. Such a distorted and dismissive view has little constructive value.
The objectives of the charter are clear and well intentioned. The road to execution has been less than straightforward although few will have expected it to be anything other than a bumpy ride. Back in August The Economist painted a bleak picture of what we then had before us:
It resembles not so much a Charter of Fundamental Rights as a badly organised package tour. The authors of the European Union's proposed new human-rights declaration have stuffed in a bit of everything, from the obvious to the incomprehensible.
That was always the concern that many of us had about the charter: too much had been included with little idea of what was most important. The article continued:
It is written in exactly the sort of eurobabble that nobody except lawyers, interest groups and other connoisseurs of the genre will ever read.
That was my second concern. If something were to come out of the charter, it had to be clear and understandable to the individuals whom it would affect.
86WH
Fortunately the draft of the charter was significantly revised in September. In the approach to the Nice conference, the Foreign Secretary spelled out last week what he believed the charter is trying to achieve. He said:
The Charter of Rights will be a political declaration, not a binding document. It will set down, for the first time in one place, the rights to which the EU's residents are already entitled.
It is clear that there is no agreement between member states about the charter's status. Recent reports suggest, and I hope that the Minister can clarify Britain's position, that Britain is not alone in rejecting a fully justiciable charter in the short term. Ireland, Sweden, the Netherlands and others have said that placing the charter in the treaties at this juncture would be inadvisable. At present, EU treaties contain no explicit code of human rights, and the convention on human rights cannot give redress when EU institutions breach convention rights because the EU has not acceded to the convention.
Liberal Democrats argue that decisions about what should and should not be a legitimate concern of the EU must not be made ad hoc. We are clear and public about the need for a constitution for Europe that defines and limits the powers of EU institutions, setting out which decisions should be rightfully taken at which level. Such clarity should be welcomed and not feared, as some Conservatives who have spoken fear it.
The draft charter of fundamental rights is an important part of the process, as it will set out the rights of the individual citizen in the European context and the correct forms of redress against any misuse of power in the EU. To incorporate a new charter at this stage, however, would significantly increase the burden on the legal system, which is still adjusting to the incorporation of the European convention on human rights into domestic law. Surely the correct place for such a charter, if it is to be justiciable, is at the heart of a constitution for Europe. Only a constitution that clarifies and defines the functions of the European tier of Government would provide a stable and legitimate framework for the democratic development of European politics at all levels, help to reconnect European institutions to the people, and guarantee that decisions are taken at the most appropriate level. Mr. Winterton —
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Nicholas Winterton): Order. I have achieved little in this place in 30 years, but the one thing that I have achieved is the title of Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Mark Oaten: Mr. Deputy Speaker, your colleague Mrs. Roe gave us a ruling that that convention had changed. I am aware of confusion among hon. Members, but I was abiding by that ruling in addressing you as Mr. Winterton.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Mrs. Roe is not a Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Oaten: Many hon. Members are confused, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and would be grateful for your clarification.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Four members of the Speaker's Panel have been given the title of Deputy Speaker for Westminster Hall, of whom I am one. Others who chair

87WH
Westminster Hall from time to time are addressed by name, because they are simply members of the Chairmen's Panel. Mrs. Roe, who was in the Chair before me, is one of them. Other additional Deputy Speakers include the hon. Members for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) and for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook).
Mr. Oaten: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I am grateful for that clarification. The rule is more confusing than some of the stuff that comes out of Brussels.
The Nice conference should seek to establish a constitutional convention, composed of representatives from member state Governments, national Parliaments, the European Commission and the European Parliament, which would be charged with drawing up a constitution of the EU. The charter's passage should not take place in a vacuum. How many of Europe's 372 million citizens know that it exists? Perhaps only slightly more than the number of people who appreciate why it is relevant and what it is intended to achieve. If the charter is seriously intended to help European citizens and bring together a people's Europe, surely a key aspect is making them aware of that fact. More work should be done to ensure that the charter is given greater publicity, so that people will know how changes to their lives could take place. The blame for that lack of awareness lies partly with the media, but politicians and the Government must take overall responsibility for failing to take the issue to the people and consult more widely.
12.8 pm
Mr. Richard Spring: I warmly congratulate the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) on securing today's debate. I also congratulate all hon. Members who have participated. The previous debate on the issue took place on 16 February. Then, as now, both sides of the House approved of many of the principles on which the charter was said to be based. Fundamental rights must be guaranteed if democracy and individual freedom are to flourish. However, at that time, concerns were expressed about the effect of setting out such wide-ranging principles in that document.
The reason why the British people do not, in the main, feel that their human rights are under threat is that we have developed, over a thousand years, a legal tradition that protects those rights. Over time, the balance of rights has been shifting gradually towards the individual citizen. Those rights are not set down in a written constitution or declaration but have evolved through British common law and are based on common sense. The charter cannot claim to have been based on such common-sense practice. We could at least have had a charter that bridged the alarming gap that already exists between EU citizens and EU institutions—by significantly improving the specific right of redress, for example. A key function of fundamental rights is, after all, that of protecting citizens from over-mighty or intrusive Government authorities. A charter protecting Europeans from overbearing EU bureaucracy would have been widely welcomed, but unfortunately this charter will not achieve that.
88WH
It is worth noting the predictions that the Minister made during our debate in February, which give an indication of the validity of reassurances he might make today. He said:
New rights will not be added.—[Official Report, Westminster Hall, 16 February 2000; Vol. 344, c. 241WH.]
Perhaps the Minister could explain why, in that case, the French European Minister is, to name but one, so misinformed? That Minr said in Strasbourg on 3 October:
Quite obviously, the charter does not only reaffirm pre-existing rights. It enshrines many new rights.
Why also was Mr. Moscovici able to welcome the charter as
the greatest collective advance, as far as the affirmation of social rights is concerned, since the beginning of the European enterprise?
Mr. Win Griffiths:Spin!
Mr. Spring: It certainly has something in common with the Government that the hon. Gentleman supports.
The Minister went on in that debate in February to tell us that the drafting body would ensure that there was no duplication with the convention on human rights. In fact, there is a huge amount of duplication. Indeed, the Council of Europe's observers have now warned that the charter
is bound to take on a dynamic which is almost certain to affect the harmonious and consistent interpretation of fundamental rights.
They go on to warn of the danger of decisions of the European Court of Justice being at variance with those of the Strasbourg court, putting members states in "a very awkward position".
It is, however, on the far more central point of the charter's legal effect that the Government's assurances have proved especially misleading. Ministers told us that they had made sure that the charter would not be incorporated into the treaties and briefed the press to that effect. We now know the real value and weight of those assurances because almost every legal and political expert outside Whitehall has made it abundantly clear that the charter will have a major impact on national law even it if is not incorporated in the treaty. The European Commission could not have been clearer about that. It stated:
It is reasonable to assume that the charter will produce all its effects, legal and others, whatever its nature.
In case the Minister and others did not get the point, the Commission document continued:
It can reasonably be expected that the charter will become mandatory through the court's interpretation of it as belonging to the general principles of Community law.
So much for the Minister's reassurance that the charter's effect would be equivalent to that of the Beano or that the document could take the form of a small pledge card.
Less than a month later, the vice-president of the European Court of Human Rights emphasised the same point, saying:
The fact is, whether the charter is declaratory or not, it will be a source of inspiration and reference, in domestic courts and the European Court of Justice.

89WH
The Council of Europe's observers have stated that it is "highly probable" that the charter will
generate a far higher number of references for preliminary rulings
than the European Court of Justice presently receives. The vice-president of the convention that drew up the charter went on to point out that, before it had even been completed, the charter had already been cited four times as a source of European values by the group of wise men investigating Austria. So the Prime Minister's solemn assurance after the Biarritz summit that the charter would not impact on national law was far from the reality. The Prime Minister was wrong, and that is not the only Government claim that has gone awry. We were told that the charter would set out only those rights already included in European legislation, but that is not the case. It includes not only several rights from the European convention, social charter and ECHR case law, but also rights said to have derived from member states' national laws. How does that meet the Minister's aim, as stated on 16 February, that the charter should explain exactly how people benefit from membership of the European Union? How does the right to strike, for example, derive from EU membership? What will be the effect of setting out such rights in a document that will influence the judgments of the ECJ?
Jean Corston: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Richard Spring: I beg the indulgence of hon. Members as there are only a few minutes available and I want to make a number of points. I apologise to the hon. Lady, although she was
not, I believe, present and participating earlier.
If the charter is intended solely for EU institutions, perhaps the Minister could explain precisely which EU institution is the intended target of article 19, which prevents member states from extraditing criminals to countries where they might be subject to the death penalty? In February the Minister told hon. Members not to get carried away with seeing the charter of rights as a European constitution. Perhaps he should address his remarks to EU ministerial colleagues on the continent, many of whom have called for just that.
We now learn that another intergovernmental conference is being planned to take place once the general election is safely out of the way. Its specific task will be to start work on a European constitution, with the charter featuring as a possible preamble. That will result in a charter that the courts will use to interfere more in national law, especially in the area of social and employment policy, and transfers yet more power to make choices from elected representatives to unelected judges. The Minister compares the charter in importance to the Beano, but the European Commission says that it will mark a turning point in the integration of Europe, moving it away from the essentially economic logic of its origins towards becoming a real political union. When the Government's claims are refuted so comprehensively and dramatically by every independent legal and political opinion, who are we to believe? Sadly, on past performance, not the Minister.
The people of Britain have enjoyed comprehensive protection in what is one of the most liberal and tolerant societies in the world. We have done so with a legal system that has clearly limited the role of the judiciary in
90WH
politics. Parliament has always been central to that. The charter will simply speed up the process of judicial involvement in our national life, and further alienate people from European institutions. It will make many lawyers rich and busy, and it will make our laws increasingly judge-driven, which is certainly more than the Beano ever sought to do.
12.18 pm
The Minister for Europe (Mr. Keith Vaz): Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to respond to this excellent debate. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) for the enormous amount of work that he has done on the charter drafting committee and for securing a debate to allow other hon. Members to join a discussion on this important document.
I welcome the speeches of my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) and the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten). It is right that we should mention that the delegation to the convention was an all-party delegation, as was demonstrated by the excellent contribution of the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey). We must also pay tribute to the noble Lord Goldsmith and the noble Lord Bowness who is, I believe, a member of the Conservative party. That all-party delegation was important, because it was good that, yet again, we were represented by first-class parliamentarians in a European forum.
As usual, although they have done an excellent job, there are still voices of criticism. I was going to call them the four horsemen of the apocalypse, but only two turned up today: the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), who has since got on his horse and ridden away, and the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill), whom he has left behind. They jumped up and down as if they were chihuahuas at the Battersea dogs home, interrupting everyone, lovingly looking for potential owners, and leaving me only a few minutes to dispel the myths put forward by the Opposition.
The hon. Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring) should really have written his speech after he heard the speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend, rather than before. If he had done so, he would have heard my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Eastleigh deal with all the points that he made. They—along with the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten)—set out clearly the intentions of the charter and what we hope that it will achieve.
We should consider the five key myths to which Opposition Members and others referred. First, the hon. Member for Ludlow said that the charter represented the beginning of a European constitution. If a telephone directory were published in Brussels, the hon. Gentleman would believe that it was the forerunner of a European constitution. We are not going to have such a constitution, so I am happy to deny categorically his statement. The charter is, as it claims to be, a political declaration of rights and principles that exist in the European Union. I must tell him that the shadow Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) signed up to it. The Union was founded on
the principles of liberty, democracy and respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms and of the rule of law.

91WH
Who signed the document that contains that phrase? The shadow Foreign Secretary, in his own hand. I was under the belief that only Labour Members believed in fundamental human right, but have discovered that the shadow Foreign Secretary believes in them too.
The second myth perpetrated by Opposition Members was that new rights were created by charter drafting committee. That, of course, is nonsense. My hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend, the hon. Member for Eastleigh and their colleagues ensured that the principles and rights that are recognised in the European Union were adopted in the charter. The committee has no mandate to extend the law of this land, and it knows that. My hon. Friend was at pains to explain to the House the necessity of maintaining existing rights and principles—and that is what happened.
Jean Corston: In response to the point made earlier about the right to strike, does my hon. Friend the Minister agree that there has been a right to strike in common law for a long time. It has long been the case that any act that would otherwise be illegal is entirely legal if committed in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute. Did not the agreement made at Maastricht simply consolidate that?
Mr. Vaz: My hon. Friend is right, and she did not have to be here for the whole debate to have made the point.
Jean Corston: I was here for most of it.
Mr. Vaz: Exactly. The point was made on previous occasions. Indeed, the employment protection legislation passed by the Conservative Government in 1992 enshrines those rights.
Thirdly, Opposition Members asked whether the charter would be binding. I appeared recently on the "Today" programme with the shadow Foreign Secretary, when I suggested that he would have to eat the charter if it were incorporated in the treaties. He was convinced that it would be incorporated into the treaties and would be judicially binding and that, as a result, the sky would fall in. I went to the conclave meeting in Brussels on Sunday night and—to emphasise the point made by the hon. Member for Winchester—I took a head count of the Ministers for Europe and Foreign Secretaries. It was basically even-stevens between those who supported incorporation and those who did not. The opinion that the United Kingdom has a minority view on that issue is absolute rubbish. Many countries do not believe that the document should be incorporated into the treaties, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend stated.
Mr. Richard Spring rose—
Mr. Vaz: Before the hon. Member for West Suffolk asks me about the Beano, I mentioned it because I know his usual reading material, and was trying to keep matters simple for him. The document will not be binding; indeed, it will be a declaration surrounded by
92WH
gold stars, as the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and I have said until we are blue in the face. It is not going to happen.
Mr. Spring: I am afraid that, characteristically, the hon. Gentleman has missed the point. The guarantee that we were trying to establish was whether it would be incorporated in the treaties or be legally enforceable? I was trying to tell him that it will be legally enforceable. That is the guarantee that we sought, which he has signally failed to deliver.
Mr. Vaz: It will not be legally enforceable. After the debate, I will give the hon. Gentleman a list of lawyers whom he can consult, and who will be able to advise him. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North said, the declaration will be proclaimed at Nice. That will be another victory for the superb negotiating of the UK delegation. What a pity that the Conservative party cannot support the good work done by some of its members.
What is the fourth euro-myth? It is that everything has been done in secret. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend pointed out, the great exclusive in The Times was also available on the worldwide web. Everybody could read the deliberations of the drafting committee, because they were accessible to all. The hon. Member for West Suffolk has made several criticisms of the charter. Did he write to my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend, who was on the drafting committee, with his suggestions for improvements?
Mr. Spring: May I say—
Mr. Vaz: Yes or no?
Mr. Spring: That, coming from the Minister, is a truly fantastic question.
Mr. Vaz: Yes or no?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Hon. Members should not make sedentary interventions.
Mr. Spring: Those points were made by Conservative Members of the European Parliament who were involved in the convention. If the Minister does not know that, he is also in ignorance.
Mr. Vaz: The shadow Minister for Europe has told us, in a roundabout way, that since February this year he has not taken a single opportunity to write to a member of the drafting committee to express his views. That sums up the attitude of the Conservative party.
What is the last euro-myth? It surrounds whether the charter will amount to anything more than a showcase. Is it a launch pad for something new, if not an EU constitution then something else? Of course it is not. It is a showcase of existing rights. All democratically elected Members of Parliament should want to make sure that citizens of this country know their rights. We want to make sure that the charter is celebrated, so people are aware of what is happening. That is why we welcome the charter. It will be proclaimed at Nice, and we will support its provisions and debate its importance for

93WH
some time to come. What is the Conservative party's argument? The hon. Member for Ludlow referred to a speech from a Belgian Foreign Minister who was not even a member of the convention drafting committee. The hon. Member for West Suffolk—who probably cannot even spell Moscovici—told us about the French Minister for Europe. Of course they are entitled to their views. There are 300 million people in the European Union, and every Minister in every Government is entitled to his or her views—we live in a democracy. Ultimately, however, decisions on the charter are made by member states—by Prime Ministers and heads of Government, sitting at Biarritz, as they did in their informal meeting, and now at Nice.
On the issue of a European army, the Leader of the Opposition said that if it sounds like an elephant and looks like an elephant it must be an elephant. The Leader of the Opposition would not know an elephant if it sat on him. The EU force to which we shall be contributing has the support of NATO and of all our allies.

Burmese Parliamentarians
12.30 pm
Ann Clwyd: One of the great pleasures of being a member of the Inter-Parliamentary Union is the opportunity to meet people from many other countries throughout the world. I was in Jakarta recently at a meeting primarily of the human rights commission of the Inter-Parliamentary Union. The human rights commission is a little known part of the IPU's work. It usually meets in parallel with the main IPU conference, at which time it is head down, ploughing through country after country, delegation after delegation. At the end of the week, we are lucky if we manage a swim in the swimming pool. The work is that intense.
However, the commission's work is immensely rewarding. In the 23 years of its existence, it has examined complaints concerning 1,128 individual or collective cases in 92 countries involving Members of Parliament. It would surprise most people that Members of Parliament in many parts of the world are not able to fulfil their mandate in the way that Members of Parliament in this country or in most democracies are expected to do. Not only are they prevented from carrying out their mandate because they have never been allowed to take up their seats in Parliament—as in the case of Burma—but some elected Members are in prison; some are being tortured; some have disappeared and some have been murdered. The intensity with which investigations are carried out in such cases varies.
At present, there are nearly 40,200 Members of Parliament throughout the world. As the work of the IPU human rights commission is now widely acknowledged, the number and scope of the complaints that are submitted to it are increasing. It has before it allegations relating to the situation of at least 180 serving and former parliamentarians in 25 countries. Thanks to the reliability and consistency of its work, the commission is respected even by countries that it has to rap over the knuckles. Above all, it has obtained satisfactory settlements for a great many cases by acting on its own or with other international supervisory and settlement bodies.
I have before me a list of 134 elected representatives of Burma who have been subjected to detention, imprisonment or forced resignation. It covers the period from 1991 to this year. Running down from the top of the list, it contains reference to parliamentarians who have been sentenced to 25 years, to 20 years, to 20 years, to 12 years, to four years, to 25 years, to seven years and so on. It is a horrific illustration of circumstances in which elected Members cannot exercise their mandate. Given our past close links with Burma, we know that, although it was badly damaged in the second world war, Burma had the best health care system, the best civil service and the highest literacy rate in south-east Asia. It has since become one of the world's poorest, least developed and most disastrously governed countries. This year the World Heath Organisation ranked Burma second to last among 191 nations in the quality of its health care services. Unelected generals run Burma even though the party of Aung San Suu Kyi — who, although she was never elected because she was prevented from standing for election, is the acknowledged world leader of her party, the National League for Democracy—won 392 seats out of 485, or 80 per cent. of seats, in 1990.

95WH
According to Amnesty International, more than 1,000 political activists were sent to Burmese prisons last year alone. At least 55 members of parliament elect are known to be in prison, five have died while in detention, and some have died after torture.
In late September this year, the generals again ordered the house arrest of Aung San Suu Kyi, the winner of the 1991 Nobel peace prize, who has spent more than six of the past 11 years under house arrest. Senior leaders of her party have been imprisoned or placed under house arrest, and two of the most influential monks in the country, who wrote letters begging the generals to talk to Aung San Suu Kyi, are being watched by military intelligence. The army halted huge pro-democracy demonstrations 12 years ago by killing several hundred people and jailing thousands more. Since then the generals have doubled the size of the armed forces to more than 400,000, although Burma, with a population estimated at 50 million, faces no serious foreign threats.
In the past five years, the military has forcibly resettled tens of thousands of potentially restive poor people from city centres to distant slums. It has closed most urban universities and has sent students to remote rural campuses. Trade unions are banned. No elections are scheduled, and none seem likely.
I should like to mention not a Member of Parliament but a political prisoner who is typical of those jailed in Burmese prisons. When he was in his 40s, he was arrested by military intelligence for associating with a banned political party. He was sentenced to 10 years in prison at a secret trial with no civilian witnesses or lawyers. Human rights groups say that his experience is typical. The former prisoner's incarceration began when guards forced a stinking blue cotton bag over his head and asked him questions for four days without allowing him to sleep. He said that the bag, which kept him from seeing the faces of his interrogators, was fouled with sweat, mucus and blood. He said that it smelled unimaginably bad. He was later caught with a magazine in his cell. At that time, prisoners were not allowed to read or write, and his punishment was three months in solitary confinement without access to a toilet or shower. Unlike some unlucky prisoners who are not allowed to clean up after themselves, he said that he was occasionally permitted to scrape excrement from his cell. I am glad to say that the International Committee of the Red Cross began making prison visits in May 1999, and as a result some prisoners' conditions have improved.
Following the latest arrest of Aung San Suu Kyi, all central committee members of her party were also placed under house arrest. They had all won seats in the general elections. Those leaders join the endless list of Members of Parliament—the numbers vary, because problems of access to prisoners makes counting them more difficult than in most other countries. Dr. Sein Win, the leader of a coalition of parties in exile, attended the IPU conference in Jakarta and talked to our commission. He believes that about 200 Members of Parliament are incarcerated. About 55 have been charged and given long prison terms. The rest, who are held in what the military call guest houses, live in conditions that are, I suppose, something like minimum security prisons.
96WH
According to Amnesty International, political prisoners in Burma are often tortured during interrogation by military intelligence after they are arrested. They can also be tortured after sentencing if they break arbitrary and harsh prison rules. Political prisoners are denied adequate food, medical care and sanitation. Dozens have died through lack of proper care. The Members of Parliament who have died in prison under those harsh conditions are Kyaw Min, who died on 1 July 1999 of hepatitis contracted in prison; Tin Maung Win, who died in January 1991 after torture and Khin Maung Kyi, who died on 8 February 1991, also after torture. Hla Than died on 2 August 1996 after torture and Saw Win died on 7 August 1998. The Burmese in exile are very concerned about the health and safety of other Members of Parliament who are under detention.
Ten women were elected during the 1990 elections and one has died since then. The military authorities still have six of the remaining nine women Members of Parliament under detention. One is Daw San San, a labour activist and central executive member of the National League for Democracy, who was arrested in connection with a plan for establishing a parallel government during the 1990s, which led to the formation of a coalition group outside Burma. She is serving a 25-year prison sentence for the second time. There is great concern about her health.
We were told by the Prime Minister in exile of the story of Daw Mya Mya Sein, a senior party organiser for women's affairs, who became paralysed after she was tortured during the recent crackdown. Five other women Members of Parliament and female members of the National League for Democracy face tough and harsh prison conditions. The Prime Minister of Burma in exile is calling on the international community to help. He stated positively that he wants the rest of the world to act, and that it is time to say loud and clear that being elected should not be a crime anywhere, including Burma.
Ms Julie Morgan: Does my hon. Friend agree that in the horrifying circumstances that she has described, income generated by Burma from tourism is helping to sustain the undemocratic regime? Burma's pro-democracy movement has urged tourists not to travel there. Should not holidaymakers take that into account before deciding to go there and should not tour operators and tour guides also consider it?
Ann Clwyd: That is an important point. It has been made by campaigning organisations, and I agree with it. It gives the regime in Burma the wrong message if tourists visit the country just as if it were somewhere in Europe where democracy and human rights were upheld. They are not upheld in Burma and people should be made more aware of the need to show dislike of the regime and the need for it to change. That can by done by boycotting it as a holiday destination.
Several organisations have called for other action. The National League for Democracy calls on the Government of Burma to release all MPs-elect immediately and unconditionally and to end all violations of the human rights of the people of Burma. The league wants the military Government to recognise the rights of the duly elected representatives of Burma to

97WH
convene the Parliament and immediately cease all restrictions placed on them. It also wants the military Government of Burma to engage with the National League for Democracy and the representatives of ethnic nationalities in a dialogue to achieve a peaceful transition to democracy.
The Burma campaign in the UK calls upon the Government to impose investment sanctions and to encourage Scandinavian countries and other sympathetic countries to do the same, as requested by Aung San Suu Kyi. The campaign calls on the Government not to attend the Association of South-East Asian Nations summit in Laos in December unless she and her party members are freed from house arrest and allowed to carry out political activities freely. The Committee Representing the People's Parliament, a coalition of all the elected members, should be recognised by all Governments.
Human Rights Watch believes that ASEAN should make it clear to Burma that its actions risk disrupting ASEAN's relationships with key aid and trading partners. As you know, Mr. Winterton, ASEAN leaders defended the 1997 decision to grant membership to Burma on the ground that engagement would induce reform there. Human Rights Watch says that ASEAN leaders should use their influence to call for an immediate lifting of restrictions on the elected Members of Parliament and to respect their basic rights. They also want the European Union to announce that it will not proceed with plans for the EU-ASEAN summit in December if the restrictions are not lifted and if the Burmese officials responsible for the recent crackdown are invited to the summit. That is a big shopping list for my hon. Friend the Minister of State, but I am sure that he will respond generously.
I am convinced that if thousands of Members of Parliament throughout the world step forward in support of their persecuted colleagues in Burma, it will not only make a difference to how the latter are treated but it will be a significant step towards bringing a national nightmare to a close. I hope, Mr. Winterton, that as many Members of the Westminster Parliament as possible will sign that declaration of solidarity. It has been circulated in Parliaments throughout the world, thousands have signed it already, and I am sure that Members here will want to do the same.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Nicholas Winterton): Order. The hon. Lady is always extremely courteous and I did not interrupt her speech, but the rule in Westminster Hall is that occupiers of the Chair, particularly myself, the hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr. McWilliam) and the hon. Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook), are addressed as Deputy Speaker. Other members of the Speakers Panel are addressed by name. I did not interrupt the hon. Lady, but I hope that she will bear that in mind.
12.48 pm
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. John Battle): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) for giving us the opportunity to debate the imprisonment of parliamentarians in Burma. She mentioned her work on the Inter-Parliamentary Union committee for human
98WH
rights. She is well respected at Westminster, in Britain and, increasingly, internationally as a campaigner and champion of human rights. She courageously takes that campaign into corners of the world that others would find uncomfortable.
My hon. Friend does not allow that seamless web of human rights to be sidelined and she campaigns consistently, tenaciously and without fear or favour. I say all that because, although she mentioned the work that she does on paper and behind the scenes, it is amazing how often her attention to detail bears fruit. It is important that we do not forget the names, faces and personalities of all those real people who are wiped out as a result of the denial of human rights. I particularly warmed to her line that being elected should not be a crime.
There will be 40 elections in the world this year, more than half of which will be in countries that have never had the full franchise before. Democratic elections are relatively new. At the other end of Westminster Hall, not many yards from here, is a little cupboard with a plaque on it to Emily Wilding Davison, who championed the rights of women to have a vote in Britain as late as the 1920s. It is significant that all hon. Members in this room are women, apart from you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and me. Democracy is pretty new and it is a fragile plant on our globe that should be protected and defended.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the denial of human rights to our imprisoned Burmese colleagues. Perhaps we can send them some hope and solidarity from our debate, from her campaign, and I hope from the Government's actions as well.
On a campaigning note, perhaps I can encourage other professions—doctors, lawyers, journalists—to raise concern about their imprisoned Burmese colleagues with their national and international bodies. My hon. Friend spelled out the recent changes in Burma, which has, according to the World Bank, dropped down the league table to become one of the poorest countries in the world. That is since the election in 1990, when it was loosely at the bottom of the middle-income countries. The decline was unnecessary because it had rice, which gave it the means to feed itself. It now has to import food to fight off starvation. That is the tragedy.
The internal political situation is intense. As we know, Aung San Suu Kyi, the leader of the National League for Democracy, attempted to travel outside Rangoon this summer and was blocked by the regime. Our debate is timely, as it is the anniversary of the second month of the latest incarceration of Aung San Suu Kyi and her colleagues from the National League for Democracy in their homes. That followed their arrest on 21 September, when they again had the audacity to try to travel within Burma—to exercise what we would call ordinary human rights, never mind political rights at a parliamentary level.
Aung San Suu Kyi and her colleagues had been involved in a nine-day standoff in a village south of Rangoon in the summer. During that time, our ambassador in Rangoon tried to gain access to her and her party, but was turned back by Burmese soldiers. He was also manhandled by the authorities when he tried to gain access to the house of U Tin Oo, the deputy chairman of the NLD.

99WH
Those events and that in the summer when Aung San Suu Kyi tried to catch a train to Mandalay, demonstrate the efforts and lengths that the regime will go to to prevent even movement. After nine hours of delay at the railway station, where diplomats were refused access to her, she was again returned to her home. She has effectively been under house arrest. Security is tight and we have not been allowed access, nor have diplomats from other embassies. U Tin Oo is reported to be held in an interrogation centre.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs issued a statement on 21 September condemning those events and demanding an explanation. However, the only person to have seen Aung San Suu Kyi since then, apart from her doctor, is Mr. Razali, the special envoy of the United Nations. The situation is tense. We must keep up the international pressure. In every possible forum, my right hon. Friend has condemned the action and called on the Burmese regime to release people without condition immediately.
I am sad to say that those people are the latest in a roll-call of parliamentarians and activists in Burma who have found themselves imprisoned for nothing but their political beliefs, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley told us. The International Committee of the Red Cross estimates that there are 1,500 political prisoners in Burma. That includes 35 NLD Members of Parliament-elect in prison, and 46 Members of Parliament-elect, 43 of whom represent the NLD, in detention in Government guest houses. They are not only held in prison, but in their homes as well. There is a clampdown.
The regime is attempting to implement a policy of effectively salami slicing the NLD to detain activists and prevent political activity. Party offices were even trashed in the summer. The regime wants to undermine the organisation and crush it. The NLD won the election, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley pointed out. It won 80 per cent. of the popular vote and 60 per cent. of the seats but has been denied access to power ever since. The regime is determined to stamp out any democratic opposition to its brutal dictatorship. We do not have the time here to spell out how human rights are denied in Burma to ethnic minorities such as the Karen and the Shan people, who are driven across the borders.
On forced labour, our ambassador and our EU colleagues have made representations to the Burmese authorities whenever possible, and we will continue to take every opportunity to do so, including occasions when representatives of Burma attend public events. We will go out of our way to make the point, uncomfortable though that may be. I can assure my hon. Friend that such representations have been made recently.
In 1990, the elections took place, but have been ignored ever since. Some 100 of those elected have been forced to resign or have gone into exile and two have died in prison. Only 132 of them are still active.
In September 1998, the regime detained without charge 1,000 opposition members, including 200 Members of Parliament-elect, in response to the NLD having convened a committee to represent the people's Parliament, to set up their own alternative organisation
100WH
because they had been denied power. That committee was formed to try to circumvent the regime's pointblank refusal even to engage with the elected representatives and convene a Parliament. Between 12 April and 5 June this year, the regime detained 137 NLD activists, including 22 Members of Parliament-elect and 78 members of the youth wing, following a relaunch of the party's youth organisation in some of the townships around Rangoon. The regime is crushing the youth movement of the political parties as well. Historically, the authorities have repressed any political activity to try to kill it off.
Political prisoners are not the only example of the regime's disgraceful record on human rights. There are 22,000 refugees in Bangladesh and 120,000 in camps on the Thai border. When my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary visited Thailand, he visited those camps to see, first hand, what was happening.
We know that forced labour takes place in Burma, but more encouragingly, the International Labour Organisation held firm when it met this month in Geneva. The ILO had warned the regime that if it continued to fail to implement three specific measures on forced labour, action would be taken against it. Last Thursday, the governing body of the ILO went ahead with actions against Burma for the first time in its 83-year history. We encouraged and supported that.

I emphasise that we have been at the forefront of action in international forums. We have been encouraging the ILO and supporting and strengthening the EU common position on Burma. In April, we argued to ensure that the export of equipment for the repression of terrorism to Burma was banned. There is already a full arms embargo, a ban on defence links and on non-humanitarian aid. There are visa restrictions on the regime. We have extended restrictions to suppress the bank accounts of members of the regime so that they cannot travel around the EU or out of Burma. We have sponsored resolutions in the UN condemning human rights violations —in the General Assembly in November and at the Commission on Human Rights in April.
In June 1997, we stated plainly that we did not encourage trade with or investment in Burma. We suspended all financial support for trade missions and trade promotion. British companies who inquire about trade with Burma are informed of the political and economic human rights situation there. In March, I told Premier Oil—the largest and practically the only UK investor left in Burma—that we would welcome its immediate departure from Burma. That statement was made publicly.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Ms Morgan) will be interested to know that we drew attention to the views of Burmese democratic leaders that tourists should not be encouraged to visit. The late Derek Fatchett, the Member for Leeds, Central, who died prematurely, called on the tourist industry to take action, and that has been followed up regularly. We cannot prevent people from going to other countries and then back-packing across the border, but it should be pointed out that every tourist who enters Burma must pay an entry fee of $200. Every one of those dollars supports the regime in its atrocious, brutal attitudes and actions. Our ambassador will make regular representations and we will hold discussions with our

101WH
colleagues in the EU about the situation in Burma. We will make contact with politicians and parliamentarians in Burma. We shall take that action because we want to bring all the pressure that we can to bear on the regime and to encourage it to enter into dialogue with the democratic groups, take them seriously and allow them the power that is legitimately theirs.
I thank my hon. Friend for raising the matter. We do not intend to relax our campaign. We will keep up the pressure in every forum, including Westminster. However, we shall sometimes need to deepen the campaign and turn it into a popular issue, so that all groups can join hands until the regime's grip is broken.

Eastbourne District General Hospital
1 pm
Mr. Nigel Waterson: It is a pleasure to have secured this debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker, especially as you are in the Chair.
My advice surgeries and mail in recent months have been taken up with cases of individuals and organisations who cannot obtain funding from social services in East Sussex. They include the old, the young, those with disabilities, people looking for respite care and others right across the spectrum. One such individual is Mr. Denis Stringer, of the Eastbourne blind society, who has written to me about the long and wholly unacceptable delays in blind and partially sighted people having their condition assessed. The voluntary sector has been hit hardest: Eastnet, which provided information technology training for disabled people in my constituency, has recently been forced to close.
At their most acute, the delays are causing the bed blocking that is the subject of my debate today: by that, I mean that there are people occupying beds in the district general hospital in Eastbourne who could and should be discharged, but who cannot be discharged because of the turmoil in the social services budget. I shall give the House an idea of the dimension of the problem. Angela Knight, the chief executive of the primary care group wrote to me, saying:
The bed blocking situation at the DGH is new and peculiar to this year. Prior to this there were no delayed discharges.
The hospital wrote to me, setting out the size of the problem. A total of 88 patients fall into that category, representing almost one in six of all beds. The most worrying thing is that 36 of those patients are awaiting assessment by social services. On average, patients have to wait four weeks to be assessed. The hospital authorities suspect that the social services department has purposely slowed down—I put it no higher than that— assessments so as to massage the figures that show the number of people who have been assessed, but cannot be moved out of hospital beds.
Wherever the blame lies, however, the numbers are increasing inexorably. The hospital said also that the trust had "virtually no delayed discharges" last winter. The hospital mentioned the financial difficulties of the social services department, in particular noting that
the price that East Sussex County Council is willing to pay is significantly below DSS rates. At this rate there are virtually no available beds in Eastbourne, although at a higher rate beds are available.
The hospital is considering
persuading patients and relatives to accept a placement in other parts of the county.
That, however, is wholly unacceptable for those who have recently been in hospital and who may be elderly or confused or both, and who need their families nearby.
The health authority has provisionally made £100,000 available to ease the situation. To be fair to the hospital authority, I should state that it is taking all sorts of imaginative steps to minimise the impact on waiting lists and operations. It has invested £500,000 in additional capacity at nearby Uckfield hospital and it is making heavy use of the Esperance private hospital in my

103WH
constituency, which provides another good example of the private sector stepping in to help with problems in the public sector.
Despite those efforts, the authority is still not hitting its targets. Current figures— the Minister may have more up-to-date information—show that it is still 242 short of the waiting list target. Trolley waits of more than four hours increased to 10 in October, compared with two in August, and there were 21 cancelled operations in October. I suspect that if it is not tackled, the problem will get worse as the winter takes hold and flu and other complaints strike down some of my constituents. The medical assessment unit that was recently opened in my constituency seems to be making a difference, but, like all such attempts to improve matters, it only makes a bad situation slightly better, as it is not designed, as it should be, to improve an existing stable situation.
East Sussex health authority wrote to me confirming that it put £100,000 into the area; it stressed that, although it does not have that money at present, it is delighted that it is already making a difference. That shows how desperate the situation is. The authority put in the money on a wing and a prayer, hoping that it would get the money back from the Government in due course. The county had overspent by a staggering £3 million only two months into the new financial year. There were 550 people in category 1 to whom the authority has a statutory obligation to provide care once they are assessed. Thus, the county council is breaking the law on a large scale by not offering those people care, and because of incompetent budgeting it has to cut spending on social services.
It is a sorry story. As long ago as 1997, councillors were warned of the long-term trends: first, people are living longer, and, secondly, more people privately arrange to go into homes and later have to be funded by the public sector because they have run out of savings, or because their savings have fallen below the statutory limit. The county administration either ignored that advice or failed to take account of it. The authority might, as I hope, get extra Government funding, but will it be able to find beds in the private sector? That concern was flagged up by the hospital.
The problem is compounded by the unwillingness of East Sussex to pay the proper rate to the private care sector. I should be interested to know the Minister's thoughts on the matter. I have raised the subject in the current and the previous Parliament and the situation remains the same. the county of East Sussex makes the second lowest payments to the private care sector. It pays about £434 per bed per week to its own social-services run homes, but only £229 to the private care sector, which is unsustainable. Professor Walter James, who is chairman of the local community health council said recently:
The county council could save £3.25 million if it showed financial prudence…27 per cent. of its budget is spent on management and support costs.
A bad situation is compounded by the unwillingness of social services to face up to the benefits of using the private sector more, and an unwillingness—or an incapacity —to budget properly. For example, social services recently entered into an agreement recently to
104WH
place some patients in Parker house, a residential home—not a nursing home—in my constituency, paying £630 a head per placement. To be fair, Angela Knight, who represents a primary care group, states that there are other factors to be taken into account in those calculations and that the rate quoted is for an average of 10 days. That may be correct, but it illustrates the county's bizarre approach to budgeting and best value— which are what we are told to look for in local government—that they pay over the odds compared to the private sector, especially private nursing homes.
We know the likely effects of implementing the "Fit for the Future" proposals in respect of the private care sector—that could be the subject of another long debate—yet we must remember that more than 90 per cent. of the care beds in East Sussex are provided by the private sector. Many have closed already and many more are under threat of closure. There is is an incompetent county administration whose ineptitude at managing its own budget is having a detrimental impact on the most vulnerable of my constituents.
I believe that the leading cabinet member responsible, Councillor David Tutt, should apologise and resign. Being Liberal Democrats, of course, they attempt to blame everyone else, which will not get them too far. As Mr. Tony Andrews, chair of the East Sussex residential care homes association recently pointed out, even if East Sussex social services receives extra funding, there will soon be insufficient beds in the residential care sector. He accuses Councillor Tutt of doing too little, too late.
Nevertheless, there is an element of truth in the council's blaming of the Government. The council refers to changes to the standard spending assessment 1999–2000, especially the decision to exclude from a local authority's assessment of spending needs some elderly people living in institutions, which reduced the SSA by £2.5 million. It is estimated that 8,400 East Sussex elderly people currently in residential care are simply ignored in the SSA calculation, and because of a freeze on SSA calculations, that unfairness has been carried forward to the current year. The council says that the change resulted in a reduction of the increase in the SSA for social services to only 1.2 per cent., compared to an inflation rate of 2.5 per cent. The national average increase was 5.8 per cent. The council also suffered because of the loss of the special transitional grant. Area cost adjustment is another problem, with councils such as East Sussex likely to be disadvantaged when the Government fiddle with the formula. Therefore, there is some basis for the county's allegation that the Government are, in part, to blame.
The problem is not limited to Eastbourne, or even to East Sussex. I have a briefing from the NHS Confederation, which states that other areas experiencing problems include Hertfordshire, west Surrey, west Kent, Cheshire and part of the south-west. The briefing speaks of the need for a joined-up policy between the NHS and social services. The Minister may have come here today with her departmental cheque-book, but the NHS Confederation is right to express its concern that the NHS should not be regarded as an alternative to properly funded local government.
Finally, some important questions remain to be answered. Ministers have known about the problem for weeks, if not months, so why has action not been taken? Will the Minister announce today that she will meet in

105WH
full the bid of £860,000 made jointly by the authorities in East Sussex, and if not, why not? If the answer to that question is yes, how soon will those funds be available to make a difference to people on the ground? Will even such a sum be sufficient to deal with bed blocking over the winter? Can the Minister confirm that it equates to more than £3 million on a full yearly basis?
What will happen next year and in subsequent years? Will there be an adjustment to the SSA calculations, or will any funds announced by the Minister today amount merely to a cynical ploy intended to prevent further problems for the Government this winter and in the run-up to a general election? What about all the other clients and potential clients of social services in East Sussex who will not be covered by such a payment because they are not in hospital or about to go to hospital? My constituents need convincing answers to these questions now.
1.14 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Ms Gisela Stuart): I congratulate the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) on securing this afternoon's debate on bed blocking in Eastbourne district general hospital. I also pay tribute to Eastbourne as the first place in England in which I spent any time. That was where 1 discovered that one cannot play cricket when it rains.
The hon. Gentleman raised some important issues. One is wide in scope and concerns public services, how the NHS and local government are affected and how Government Departments are working together. In that context, I am sure that he will warmly welcome the Prime Minister's announcement today of a commitment to spend £43 billion in the next three years on public services.
All public services working together contribute to the nation's health. I can do no better than to quote the Prime Minister who said,
Every school we invest in helps our children earn more. Every nurse we employ in the NHS is a guarantee people won't be forced to pay privately when they are ill. Every penny spent on new track and trains, even amidst the present problem, is a step towards the transport system…this country, the fourth largest economy in the world, needs.
He added:
Yes it takes time. Yes it takes patience. But it takes, above all, investment.
I want to talk about investment and planning, particularly as they relate to the NHS working with social services. Some consists of short-term measures for dealing with immediate problems, but more crucial is the underlying investment aimed at sustainable public services. All our public services face a common challenge. Some people say that they cannot be run and funded and that at a time when the consumer is king the private sector is the answer. 1 take issue slightly with the hon. Member for Eastbourne for saying—I hope that I am not misquoting him—that the private sector had to step in to help the public sector when it could not cope. I prefer to say that we hope to work together with the private sector in a constructive and strategic way.
It is most important that the health service exists for everyone: the elderly and young alike. It is for young people leaving care and for society as a whole. However,
106WH
we must recognise that the NHS has problems. We inherited a system with services that were too slow and standards that were too variable. When we published the NHS plan in July, few of us had any doubt about what was at stake. The system was chronically underfunded and short of staff. It needed investment, new buildings and new equipment, but also, very importantly, new ways of working together. It needed money, but that money came at a price: a commitment to change the way in which the various agencies work together. In the end, we want first-class public service, whether in health or social services.
Last week, we announced further funding to speed up the pace of implementation. The announcement included confirmation that from April next year health authorities will receive an average cash increase of £29 million. East Sussex, Brighton & Hove health authority will receive £594.5 million in 2001–02. That is a cash increase of £44 million and it compares favourably with the much lower increase in 1997–98 under the previous Government.Social services are also receiving more resources. In the previous Parliament, spending on personal social services rose by an annual average of just 0.1 per cent. in real terms. Under the Labour Government, by the end of 2003-04 spending will have risen by 22 per cent. in real terms.
East Sussex county council's overall standard spending assessment increased by 5.4 per cent. The national average increase was 4.4 per cent. in 2000-01. The council's personal social services SSA increased by 5.3 per cent. compared with a national average of 5.1 per cent. The increases have been above national averages. Those resources will help to tackle the constraints faced in the past, which are partly to blame for the problems raised today. The reform of the NHS and social services and the additional resources that the Government are investing in those services will count for nothing if the two do not work in partnership.
Next month, the Government will be publishing a detailed NHS plan implementation programme for the health service and for social services. It will set out the investment and the progress that will need to be made by health and social services in the next year. They should be in no doubt that we expect them to work together to deliver our reforms. The East Sussex, Brighton and Hove winter plan highlighted strong local planning systems and the development of good joint working relationships between health and social care at an operational level. However, a joint strategic approach is also crucial and I have instructed the health and social care regional offices to ensure that that is in place.
The hon. Member for Eastbourne does not need to remind me that winter is just around the corner and that some parts of the NHS will come under intense pressure. However, I take a slightly cynical approach if a winter crisis is being talked about in the media. We must be realistic about what is happening and how we intend to tackle it. Such pressure would not have arisen if many of our services had not been neglected for so long, particularly the NHS. We have already asked those areas throughout the country that are experiencing particular problems to inform the regional offices of the NHS Executive of the risks that they will face this winter and the immediate measures that must be taken to ensure that local people have the services they need, when they need them.

107WH
East Sussex, Brighton and Hove took part in that exercise and we considered the information that was provided, along with representations that we received from my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Mr. Foster), who I am delighted to see in the Chamber. We expect shortly to make an announcement about the additional funding to help those areas. I am sorry to disappoint the hon. Member for Eastbourne that I have not arrived today with a cheque. The announcement will be made shortly—it is part of the plans. The money will come with a clear expectation of what is to be delivered on the ground. The additional funds will be spent on ensuring that health and social services throughout the country can cope this winter and that patients receive appropriate care and treatment. Dealing with issues such as bed blocking will be a priority in any funding allocation and I shall write to the hon. Gentleman with details when the announcement has been made.
The additional funds are for short-term solutions, however. The regional offices will closely monitor their use to ensure that they deliver what has been promised. We cannot live in the long term on quick fixes. We need to build an NHS that offers people fast and convenient care that is delivered at a consistently high standard. Eastbourne has already made a start and the hon. Member for Eastbourne has recognised some of the improvements that have been made. Eastbourne hospital's NHS trust opened its medical assessment unit in September at a cost of £300,000. Although the verified official figures are not yet available, it is making a considerable impact on the throughput of patients. The trust has spent 1.3 million in additional activity to reduce overall waiting list sizes. It has also received £844,000 capital funding this year to reduce out-patient waiting lists. It is using those funds to build a purpose-built eye and cataract unit to undertake an additional 400 cataract procedures a year, to improve capacity and the environment of the trauma and orthopaedic outpatient department, and to extend and enhance outpatient consulting facilities in the ear, nose and throat department.
The trust has received £900,000 to build an extension to the accident and emergency department, enhanced by an additional donation of £400,000 from the local league of friends, to which I pay tribute. Furthermore, £250,000 of the £63 million additional funding that has already been provided by the Government for this winter has been spent on initiatives in Eastbourne and Wealden, including a multidisciplinary intermediate care rapid response team. That is important because it prevents unnecessary hospital admissions from nursing and residential homes and the local community as a whole. The funding will enable a social services assessment officer to cover Crowborough and Uckfield hospitals between December and March and will expand the community psychiatric nurse out-of-hour services during the Christmas and new year period and the CPN elderly service from December to February. It will provide additional general practitioner surgeries during the weekend prior to Christmas.
As the hon. Member for Eastbourne will realise, it is not all doom and gloom in Eastbourne as he would have us believe. I have outlined the good foundations that can be built on, and build on them we shall because we want
108WH
to ensure that patients in Eastbourne receive health services that the spending plans of a Conservative Government would fail to deliver. Investment in public services is key to all the success this winter and in future, and there will be a continued development of intermediate care. Such treatment is concerned with promoting independence, providing care closer to home, preventing avoidable hospital admissions and supporting timely discharge and active rehabilitation following hospital.
The NHS plan announced that, by 2004, there would be an extra 7,000 beds in the NHS. Of those, 5,000 will be in intermediate care in a variety of settings. There will also be an extra 1,700 non-residential intermediate care places. The NHS plan also announces an extra £900,000 million for intermediate care and related services by 2004. Although that investment was announced in the NHS plan, the money is for both health and social care, recognising the interdependence of the services in delivering intermediate care.
Intermediate care will be a vital weapon in meeting the target that the Government set in the NHS plan, which was to end widespread bed-blocking by 2004. Eastbourne has already made a good start in developing intermediate care services. I shall give some examples. Two community and rehabilitation teams have been established in Eastbourne and Wealden. Funding for the rapid response team that I mentioned will be made available throughout the year. Also, four additional intermediate care beds will be provided through the local community trust during the winter months. Of course, we expect much more to be done and the social care and NHS Executive regional offices will continue to provide support.
The hon. Member for Eastbourne asked some specific questions. I did not come with a cheque today, but an announcement will be made shortly. We insist that the announcement be linked with some realistic plans and careful monitoring. That is because it is not meant as a way in which social services, or health economies that do not work together as effectively as they should, can be used simply to buy a way out of short-term problems without tackling the bigger difficulties. For example, I note that East Sussex social services prefers to spot purchase places in the private sector.
Our relationship with the private sector was best signified by the concordat. We want a long-term strategic relationship by which the two sectors work together, but not by which one develops at the expense of the other. We expect some strategic planning, which would be best value. I do not agree with the tenor of the hon. Gentleman's comments. He thinks that best value is some sort of gimmick, but it is a real issue.
The hon. Gentleman quoted the NHS Confederation and I found myself in unexpected agreement as I also thought it important to quote it. It said:
Whilst it is a short term solution, it is not sustainable in the long term. Inevitably money spent on social services means money is not spent on modernising the NHS.
We say that money that goes to both social services and the NHS must be spent in a strategic, co-operative way, so that we end up with a long-term, sustainable structure.

109WH
The winter emergency services capacity and planning team, which we fondly call WEST, plans to visit East Sussex in the next month, and the regional intermediate care change team plans to visit in the new year. Those visits are part of the national programme and will ensure that good practice and the most efficient patient pathways are shared with the local health service.
We all know that there will be problems in parts of the NHS during the winter; it would be foolish for me to pretend otherwise. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we listened to his concerns. People will see two streams of funding, one dealing with immediate problems, the other with long-term investment. That will mean that the services increasingly improve and that we can show that public services funded from taxation are the way forward, rather than the private sector alone. Our commitment is clear. We want first-class treatment for every patient free at the point of delivery and a first-class national health service delivered by first-class public services.

Forced Marriages
1.29 pm
Mrs. Ann Cryer: I thank my hon. Friend the Minister, not only for his presence this afternoon but for his continuing and active interest in this subject.
I sought the debate to discuss the report of the Home Office working group on forced marriage, "A Choice by Right". My intention was not to give the Minister a load of moans about the Home Office but to stress the cruelty of forced marriages, whether the enforcement is carried out or avoided. My message is to parents and community leaders—secular, political and religious. I also want to put it on record that neither the Government nor I are opposed to arranged marriages. I am well aware of the many problems arising from our own less organised, less well-thought-out practices.
Arranged marriages, as explained to me by people of Asian and North African descent, are an excellent way to achieve the most important agreement into which people enter. The basic ingredient is one of valid and voluntary consent—their choice by right—with an absolute right to refuse, whether because the suggested partner or the timing is wrong for them. Many suggestions that might help greatly in achieving consent have been made, including that families should alter radically their views on where their future son or daughter-in-law should come from. They should question the received wisdom that their children should be perfectly happy marrying a first cousin from a tiny village in a rural area. Such a person may have no English, and, frequently, little education, with not much chance of getting a job in the UK. That combination leads to sons and daughters refusing to go along with parental demands, leading to the young person being forced into an unsuitable marriage or losing their family, either of which is a tragedy for the young person. The family, however, may feel that their honour has been protected, that there is no other way to deal with such a bad girl or boy, and that they are justified in their actions.
The community must discuss what is family honour and family shame, and examine the outcome of their actions, not only for the child but for the fortunes and the image of the community. Were families to seek potential sons and daughters-in-law from their own community in the UK, and preferably not first cousins abroad—I have been prompted to mention that the Bangladeshi community tends not to have a tradition of marrying first cousins—we would see a marked improvement. Children would start school with English and the ability to take on many other demands straight away. The number of children born with genetically transmitted diseases and disabilities would be reduced almost immediately. I have seen far too many parents and families devastated by the constant demands put on them by caring for such children.
According to the Department for Education and Employment publication based on research by Warwick university—"Minority Ethnic Participation and Achievements in Education, Training and the Labour Market"—the Pakistani and Bangladeshi population, time and again, do less well than the Indian population in academic achievements and levels of employment. Table 8.2 shows that, in 1999, 49 per cent. of the Indian

111WH
population who were economically active qualified to at least NVQ level 3, whereas the figure for Pakistanis and Bangladeshis was 37 per cent. As many of my constituents are from the latter communities, I am deeply concerned by those findings, and want to know the reasons why.
I attended a meeting recently at one of my local schools. I joined the head teacher and the chairwoman of the governors in a discussion with three local imams about why children from the two local Asian communities were underachieving. It is too early to assess whether the kind, well-considered comments of that dedicated head teacher will have a positive effect on the lives of the children. Two of the imams recognised the problems and said that they would do their best to influence their communities, and I hope that the third imam will recognise the need for change eventually. Were families not only to allow but to encourage their children, especially daughters, to stay on at school, go to university, perhaps enter the professions or obtain another kind of job, the academic and economic well-being of their communities would eventually be enormously improved, especially if English were spoken in the home to give children the kick start that is too often lacking at present.
Low self-esteem is often given as the reason for students of Pakistani and Bangladeshi origin underachieving. Perhaps more of our schools should challenge accepted attitudes and practices within communities. For example, if the schools do not weigh in on the side of those trying to stop forced marriages, the work of implementing the recommendations of the Home Office working group will be more difficult, lengthier and will produce more heartache for a growing number of young people.
I should like to touch on the two categories of victims created by forced marriages. The most vulnerable are without doubt those young people, but particularly girls, brought in as spouses. Often their only view of the UK is while they are taken from the airport to their in-laws' home. They then, in the worst cases, are expected to be virtual domestic slaves. If they complain, they are sometimes beaten and/or threatened with being sent home. They do not speak any English and do not know their rights. They frequently do not realise that their treatment is against the law and totally unacceptable. They have nowhere to run to and no one to turn to.
In Bradford and Keighley, help is at hand only when their predicament is noticed by an observant doctor, nurse or health visitor, or, if they have children, a teacher. Then the admirable Philip Balmforth comes on to the scene. If the woman so wishes, he will help her and her children to escape to a safe place. Philip is employed jointly by Bradford social services and West Yorkshire police. He is loathed by some, but greatly loved and appreciated by many more.
We could question whether those unfortunate women were forced into marriage. The question is academic. The outcome, whether they were forced or simply not asked, is tragic. If her husband has not obtained her permanent right to remain, the refuge or other secure accommodation to which she is taken may well not receive money as she is not entitled to benefits. One refuge in Bradford, having taken in a number of such
112WH
women within a short time, faced financial problems. I should appreciate a comment from my hon. Friend as to how we can deal with that problem.
The other category of victim of forced marriage or threat of it, is better documented because it involves girls and young women—sometimes young men—born in the UK who have a better idea of their rights and where to turn to for help. The Home Office working group report is full of the sad stories told to them by this second category. I will just add my most recent cry for help, which happened yesterday. It is typical of what goes on in West Yorkshire. It is so typical and I know it so well that I could almost set it to music.
A girl telephoned my office yesterday saying that she had been forced into a marriage in Pakistan. She wanted to see my assistants, but was frightened to do so. She asked to be let in at the back door because if she was seen entering by the front door she would probably be beaten by her parents. She explained to us that she had been to Bradford Law Centre to ask for help in getting out of applying as a sponsor to bring her husband in. I must check this out, as I do not have the back-up information. The helper at the law centre advised her not to write to the Islamabad high commission—I know that this does not involve the Department of my hon. Friend the Minister and that I will have to take it up with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office—because the officials there would show her husband the letter when interviewing him and the cat would be out of the bag. He and her parents would know that she was opposing his entry.
She had been taken to Pakistan by her parents earlier this summer. Her brother was marrying a cousin in Mirpur and she was going as a guest. When she arrived it was the old, old story: she discovered that the wedding was not just for her brother, but for her. She was to marry a cousin and really did not want to. She argued with her parents, but they insisted. There are always threats of removing passports. Anyhow she was forced into it, and now she is back in Keighley. She is extremely reluctant to apply for his entry.
An application has been made. Her uncle filled in and signed the forms on her behalf. Her family have also obtained information about her work record from a friend who is an employer and he has provided them with bogus pay chits to demonstrate that she is in full-time employment. She is not. I am pleased that she is in full-time education and doing A-levels. I do not want to blow the whole thing by raising it too high, and I will not mention names. If she does not want to have him here, we will do what we can to stop his entry. However, as my hon. Friend the Minister knows, things become difficult when a couple have gone through with the marriage.
The working group report does not support the creation of a new criminal offence for forced marriage. However, it suggests that there have been prosecutions in connection with enforcement to marry, for threatening behaviour, assault, kidnap and murder. What, I wonder, about rape or conspiracy to rape by the family? Such a rape is usually carried out at the time of the forced marriage, and is therefore beyond the jurisdiction of our courts. Action cannot be taken, even when those implicated return to the United Kingdom. French courts, however, now have the remedy of prosecution of parents who procure genital mutilation or female circumcision for their daughters outside of

113WH
France. That practice happens frequently in former colonies such as Senegal—it is illegal, but continues. I wonder whether something similar can be done about forced marriages.
The Home Office and Foreign Office have created a joint action plan called "Forced marriage—the overseas dimension", which is full of suggestions to deal with the questions raised by "A Choice by Right". The Foreign and Commonwealth Office consular division is developing the community liaison unit. I have spoken at length to some of the people working in that unit; they are enthusiastic and have a lot of good ideas that will help young people faced with the trauma of forced marriage. Our Government are clearly committed to finding ways of ending the practice of forced marriage, but is that commitment shared by ethnic minority communities? Are their leaders part of the problem or will they become part of the solution? The jury—our young people—are still out, but I look forward to a positive response. I hope that our communities will take up the challenge and work with Government Departments and local authorities to give to all young people the most fundamental of human rights—a say in whom they should marry. That should be a choice by right.
1.42 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Mike O'Brien): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Keighley (Mrs. Cryer) for raising this important issue in an Adjournment debate. She brought the problem of forced marriage to the House's attention in the debate on the human rights of women held on 10 February last year. That debate was followed by a seminar at the Institute of Public Policy Research which led me to set up the working party chaired by my noble Friends Baroness Uddin and Lord Ahmed last July.
The working party's report, "A choice by right", was published on 29 June. It reflected consultation with a wide range of women's groups and took account of the victims of forced marriage. The report highlighted the problems faced by those victims and the difficulties experienced by women's groups in trying to offer help and advice to them. It recommended ways in which the Government, service providers and the affected communities could work together to tackle the problem. Its recommendations included raising awareness of rights and responsibilities and the protection available by law, and developing a shared understanding of the problems faced daily by those at grass-roots level.
The working group did an excellent job by breaking the taboo on the subject once and for all—a taboo that existed in many ethnic minority communities. They knew that it happened, even if on a relatively small scale, but there was no open discussion about it. Such discussion is now taking place widely. As I said in response to our previous debate on the subject, multicultural sensitivity is no excuse for moral blindness on such issues.
I am pleased that, in response to the work undertaken by the working group, community and religious leaders have strongly condemned the practice. My hon. Friend the Member for Keighley is right to say that community leaders must become part of the solution. I was pleased
114WH
by the response of many community leaders to the comments and recommendations in the working party report, although I would have liked more of them to speak up much more forcefully on the issues. I thank community leaders who have taken a strong stand and call on those who have so far maintained silence to speak out. It will, of course, take time to see the impact in communities. Indeed, paradoxically we may see an increase in the number of cases coming to light in the short term—that will be a sign that victims are more ready to report their plight and seek help.
I reassure communities that we do not wish to challenge the tradition of arranged marriage—the point emphasised by my hon. Friend—which has operated successfully within many religious and ethnic communities for a long time, and continues to do so. It is essential to distinguish between forced and arranged marriages: unlike forced marriage, an arranged marriage relies on consent. The distinction is clear. As Home Office and Foreign and Commonwealth Office Ministers said when launching our joint action plan on 4 August,
We wish to make it clear that this action plan is about assisting young people whose fundamental rights are at risk; we will not be using this to create more restrictive immigration rules and most certainly will not re-introduce the unfair and discredited Primary Purpose Rule.
That refers to an anti-family policy which we condemn.
Our action plan sets out a comprehensive strategy on the overseas dimension of forced marriage. It launched a major programme of co-operation and training between key police forces in the UK and their counterparts overseas and set in train a review of how our consular staff overseas handle the victims of forced marriage: people in the UK being forced into a marriage against their will or people coming to the UK to enter a marriage that is not genuine—although they may sometimes know that it is not genuine. In such circumstances, consular officials must be alive to the relevant concerns and ensure that they address them appropriately and sensitively.
We therefore want a joined-up approach, in which the Government, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office dealing with entry clearance, the Home Office dealing with law and order issues, voluntary groups and communities work together to ensure that we protect the victims. We envisage a partnership between the Government, women's groups, the police and others. We have said that we will shortly report on our progress. I have made plans to meet officials at the end of next week to review progress and I hope soon afterwards to state when we will issue a report.
I am pleased that good progress, on a widespread basis, has already been made on the joint action plan. For example, in October the Foreign and Commonwealth Office set up a dedicated community relations desk to deal with forced marriage, combining both casework and policy. Work has started on producing credit-card-sized information cards which young women can carry discreetly when they go abroad. We aim to provide a number on those cards so that women who think that they are just going on a holiday will be able to contact that number quickly if anything adverse happens. I hope that we shall receive the cooperation of local law enforcement agencies in the relevant country and that consular staff will do what

115WH
they can to address these people's needs. All too often, it is young, vulnerable people—sometimes men, but more typically women—who are forced into these difficult circumstances.
Consular staff are being consulted about a draft memorandum of understanding for co-operation with other countries on tackling forced marriage problems. We are engaging with Governments of other countries and receiving, at least at senior level, a positive response and a willingness to address the issues. The co-operation that we receive from Governments and senior police and other enforcement agencies should also be delivered at a local level. We well know that the Governments of some countries may be helpful to British citizens who are caught in these difficult circumstances, but the police chief at the local level may be less helpful.
We are publishing revised guidance on dual nationality and a strategy is also in place for treating cases with a human rights dimension where forced marriage is in dispute. We want to ensure that it can be tested. We are actively engaged in pursuing these difficult, complex and important issues with other Governments and we want to develop a careful analysis on how best to deal with them within our law.
A conference has been arranged for January in Bradford to help UK police forces to establish closer links with police forces abroad in order to tackle forced marriages and other problems. The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions has made it clear that victims of forced marriage and domestic violence will be covered by the proposed extension of the priority unintentionally homeless groups for rehousing. Twenty of the 75 projects funded by the new Home Office connecting communities fund are women's support groups who offer counselling and helpline services to victims of domestic violence, including forced marriage. We must be careful about those to whom we refer forced marriage problems.
An important debate is taking place among women's groups, particularly those representing women from ethnic minority communities. Some are cautious about engaging with voluntary groups that seek to assist them; others are much more open. We must approach these issues with sensitivity and care. I am well aware of how that debate is developing.
I am pleased to say that at its meeting on 20 November the interdepartmental group on violence against women agreed to monitor action across all Government Departments, as recommended by the working group. All Departments must now be aware of issues relating to forced marriage. Where the emphasis may previously have been on the need for multicultural sensitivity, the message for all Departments now is that there is no excuse for moral blindness. That is right. That was recommended by the working group and we are delivering it. The IDG will review progress at its next meeting early in the new year to ensure that the appropriate mechanisms to review action are in place.
116WH
I am also pleased to report that the hon. Member for Luton, South (Ms Moran), who chairs the all-party parliamentary group on domestic violence, has agreed that the group will regard forced marriage as an issue within its remit and work programme. The debate will not rise and die away. My hon. Friend the Member for Keighley is determined to ensure that the issue remains at the forefront of concern. It will be the remit of an all-party parliamentary group and the Government will remain aware of, and alive to, the issue in the years to come.
I welcome the way in which the all-party group took those decisions and the monitoring arrangements that it will put in place. All that shows that the Government and Parliament are serious about tackling the problem. As I said, however, we cannot solve it alone. As the working party said in its report, it is for communities, and especially parents, to take the lead in eradicating forced marriage. There is a need for dialogue and education among parents, children and opinion formers in affected communities in order to change attitudes and prevent the sad ramifications of forced marriage. Leadership has been shown, and I want more to be shown in some communities.
The joint chairs of the working group have had meetings with community groups not only to collect information for the report, but to report back to those communities on the recommendations that they have made to the Government and our response. We are trying to encourage support in communities for tackling the problem by explaining the report's contents and ensuring that the issues are addressed.
My hon. Friend the Member for Keighley referred to particular cases. If a spouse is brought to this country and is isolated by an inability to speak the language and lack of contact with others, domestic violence may result. The Government introduced a domestic violence concession on 16 June 1999, which is intended to benefit those who suffer domestic violence during the probationary year and make an application to the Home Office while they still have extant leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom.
A person who informs the Home Office that his or her marriage has broken down because of domestic violence and who makes an application for settlement during the validity of his or her leave to enter or remain could benefit under the concession. Applications made after the expiry of an applicant's limited leave that meet all the other requirements of the concession will be considered sympathetically and account will be taken of the reasons for the delay in making the application. Long-term overstayers may still make an application for leave to remain exceptionally outside the immigration rules.
Each case is decided on its merits, taking into account any compassionate factors relating to an individual's circumstances. Spouses are entitled to take employment during the probationary year and continue to work while an application under the concession is considered.
I shall deal with a couple of the points raised by my hon. Friend. She referred to genital mutilation. I do not know whether you saw Channel 4 yesterday evening, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I was shocked by its horrific report on genital mutilation in the UK and people being subjected to that practice abroad. I am very concerned

117WH
about what I have heard and I shall discuss with ministerial colleagues in the Department of Health how we ensure that the issue is addressed and that prosecutions result where appropriate.
My hon. Friend also raised a concern about how entry clearance problems are addressed and mentioned a case in her constituency. A man may go to entry clearance officers in order to enter the UK for a marriage that I assume he or at least his intended spouse knows is not genuine, because it is not being entered into voluntarily. The difficulty at entry clearance is that the application must be decided in an open and straightforward way. Any evidence used in a decision must be the subject of an appeal. My hon. Friend is
118WH
concerned that that information may prejudice the circumstances of the young lady in the UK. We are working through complex legal issues. We know that there is a problem and we want to address it.
Forced marriage is wrong. The Government are determined—as many hon. Members are—to ensure that we prevent it from happening in this country in so far as we can do that. We seek the support of communities in doing that. We have received a lot of support so far, but we want more. The issue is a moral one and we are determined to continue addressing it.
It being one minute to Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the sitting lapsed, without Question put.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Crushed Cars
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his reply of 1 November 2000,Official Report, column 458W, in respect of the number of crushed cars in 2000, if he will break down the number by (a) registration year and (b) model. [136934]

  Mr. Hill
  DVLA's wheelclamping database holds information on clamped and impounded vehicles by registration mark and make. Although the exact ages of vehicles are not readily available, the age identification letter which forms part of the vehicle registration mark provides a good indication.

  The following two tables show (i) the approximate age of the vehicle and (ii) the make of the crushed vehicle.

  DVLA—Wheelclamping scheme Breakdown of vehicles crushed—age identifier

  Prefix/Suffix/Other

  Letter

  Year

  Number of vehicles

  Suffix

  L

  —

  2

  Suffix

  M

  1973–74

  8

  Suffix

  N

  1974–75

  8

  Suffix

  P

  1975–76

  8

  Suffix

  R

  1976–77

  14

  Suffix

  S

  1977–78

  12

  Suffix

  T

  1978–79

  42

  Suffix

  V

  1979–80

  54

  Suffix

  W

  1980–81

  81

  Suffix

  X

  1981–82

  193

  Suffix

  Y

  1982–83

  396

  Prefix

  A

  1983–84

  664

  Prefix

  B

  1984–85

  1,008

  Prefix

  C

  1985–86

  1,340

  Prefix

  D

  1986–87

  1,654

  Prefix

  E

  1987–88

  1,842

  Prefix

  F

  1988–89

  1539

  Prefix

  G

  1989–90

  826

  Prefix

  H

  1990–91

  293

  Prefix

  J

  1991–92

  82

  Prefix

  K

  1992–93

  55

  Prefix

  L

  1993–94

  21

  Prefix

  M

  1994–95

  14

  Prefix

  N

  1995–96

  4

  Prefix

  P

  1996–97

  0

  Prefix

  R

  1997–98

  1

  Non age related marks

  —

  Unknown

  44

  Total

  10,205

  178W

  DVLA—Wheelclamping scheme Breakdown of vehicles crushed—make

  Vehicle make

  Number crushed

  Alfa

  11

  Audi

  68

  Austin

  816

  Bedford

  119

  Bertone

  1

  BMW

  139

  Cadillac

  2

  Carbodies

  2

  Chevrolet

  1

  Citroen

  160

  Colt

  6

  DAF

  1

  Daihatsu

  21

  Daimler

  1

  Dutton

  1

  Fiat

  305

  Ford

  3,303

  Freight

  38

  FSO

  1

  Honda

  140

  Hyundai

  48

  Jaguar

  23

  Kia

  2

  Lada

  59

  Lanchester

  4

  Lancia

  3

  Leyland

  30

  Mazda

  82

  Mercedes

  40

  Mercury

  1

  MG

  70

  Mitsubishi

  20

  Morgan

  3

  Morris

  1

  Nissan/Datsun

  588

  Oldsmobile

  1

  Opel

  29

  Peugeot

  358

  Porsche

  3

  Proton

  19

  Reliant

  3

  Renault

  346

  Rickman

  1

  Rover

  689

  Saab

  47

  Sao

  1

  Scania

  1

  Seat

  54

  Seddon

  1

  Sherpa

  1

  Skoda

  18

  Subaru

  13

  Suzuki

  19

  Talbot

  25

  Toyota

  170

  Trabant

  1

  Transit

  1

  Triumph

  24

  TVR

  1

  Unrecorded

  30

  Vauxhall

  1,369

  Volkswagen

  476

  Volvo

  368

  Yamaha

  2

  Yugo

  16

  Zastava

  8

  Total

  10,205

  Departmental Employees (HIV)
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will take steps to ensure that people who are HIV-positive do not suffer discrimination as a result of employment practices followed by his Department. [137783]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The Department is committed to equality of opportunity in the employment of staff. It also has commitments towards their welfare and well-being and takes a number of steps to ensure that there is no discrimination against staff who are HIV-positive.

  HIV is covered by the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 and the Human Rights Act 1998 and in accordance with these legislative requirements. Departmental guidance given in the staff hand book states that:
  There will be no discrimination in recruitment against applicants (for both external and internal vacancies) on the grounds that the applicant is HIV-positive. Applicants who have declared they are HIV-positive will be subject to the normal rules governing health appointments.
  Staff will not be dismissed because they are HIV-positive or transferred to alternative employment unless they request it or medical advice recommends this, or medical retirement is appropriate.
  No member of staff or applicant for a post is required to take the HIV antibody test.
  Victimisation of any member of staff who is HIV-positive could result in disciplinary action being taken against the offending member of staff.
  Staff who are HIV-positive are not required to inform the Department. If a member of staff declares that they are HIV-positive, the information will be maintained on a confidential basis.

  The Department recognises the importance of counselling for members of staff who are HIV-positive. Counselling and Support Services will provide counselling, advice and adequate support and will make reasonable arrangements to enable work to be continued.

  The Department has the following support mechanisms available to staff who are HIV-positive:

  Counselling and Support Services

  Harassment Contact Officers

  Trade Union Support

  Lesbian Gay and Bisexual Network

  Disability Network

  Personnel Advisers.

  As an example of positive support, members of the Equality and Diversity Team, along with the Trade Union representatives, recently liaised with the National Aids Trust to prepare a return to work programme for an HIV-positive member of staff who is undergoing combination therapy.

  Council Tax Bands (Properties)
  Mr. Coleman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many, and what percentage of, properties in each council tax band there are in(a) London, (b) Liverpool and (c) Birmingham. [138629]
  180W
  Ms Beverley Hughes
  I have placed in the Library of the House a table showing the number and percentage of dwellings on 15 October 1999 that were in each council tax band in London, Liverpool and Birmingham.

  Petrol Retailers
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will establish a rate relief scheme for small independent petrol retailers in rural areas. [139104]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  On 19 September, we published our Green Paper "Modernising Local Government Finance", in which we asked for views on whether the village shop rate relief scheme should be extended to certain rural petrol stations. This would provide 50 per cent. mandatory rate relief to singly owned petrol stations with rateable values below £6,000 that are located in designated rural settlements and provide a community facility or service which is not available elsewhere in the locality (for example, a cash machine or cashback facility) and up to 100 per cent. top-up relief. The consultation period ends on 8 December. We will make our decision on whether mandatory relief should be extended to rural petrol stations in light of responses to the Green Paper. All petrol stations with rateable values below £12,000 and located in qualifying rural settlements can already receive up to 100 per cent. discretionary relief if the local authority feels it is of benefit to the local community.

  Energy Conservation
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 6 June 2000,Official Report, column 209W, on energy conservation, for what reason the improvements to Part L of the Building Regulations have not come into effect; and if he will make a statement. [139338]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  In my answer of 6 June 2000,Official Report, column 209W, I said that our Part L proposals were to be published for public consultation shortly, and this happened on 15 June. The consultation period ended on 29 September and over 350 responses were received. The proposals are now being re-examined by my Department in conjunction with the Building Regulations Advisory Committee in the light of that excellent response.

  River Wye
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement about the outcome of the recent public inquiry on access and navigation rights on the River Wye. [139278]

  Mr. Mullin
  The application made by the Environment Agency for an Order under the Transport and Works Act 1992 to confer on it powers to regulate navigation on the River Wye has raised complicated issues which require very careful consideration. Since the close of the inquiry we have continued to receive detailed representations from parties to the inquiry, including the Agency. Earlier this year, in the interests of proper administration, we made these representations available to others appearing at the inquiry so that they could comment on them. We are now considering the comments along with the Inspector's report of the inquiry.
  181W
  We will make a decision on the application as soon as possible. Before doing so, we will consult the National Assembly for Wales since the proposed Order would, if made, affect Wales as well as England.

  Cheltenham?Swindon Rail Line
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the suspension of train services due to tunnel and track repairs on the Cheltenham to Swindon line. [139351]

  Mr. Hill
  Railtrack is undertaking a major engineering project following flood damage to the 155 year-old Sapperton Tunnel, between Swindon and Gloucester. The cap of a former construction shaft in the floor of the tunnel collapsed due to the amount of stormwater flowing through the tunnel drainage system.

  The track over the shaft will be removed before foundations, bearings and new concrete slabs can be installed over the shafthead. Works will also be carried out to four similar shafts to ensure future storms do not cause another collapse.

  Railtrack expects normal passenger services to resume in about four weeks when the works should be completed.

  Flood Relief (Gloucestershire)
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on planning issues in relation to flood relief measures in Gloucestershire. [139350]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The Government are committed to reducing, where possible, the risks from flooding to people, property and the natural environment. It is for the Environment Agency to bring forward flood relief measures when they are required for consideration by the appropriate local authority.

  Guidance on planning issues in relation to flood relief measures and other issues related to flood risk is contained in Circular 30/92. This is currently being revised and strengthened and we expect to publish the new PPG 25 "Development and flood risk" as soon as practicable in the new year.

  Fences
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will issue planning guidance to local authorities on the design and materials of fences fronting dwellings in rural areas. [139245]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  Best practice guidance on all the built elements of a development is contained in "By Design", a good practice guide published jointly by my Department and the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment. The Countryside Agency has also promoted Village Design Statements and Countryside Design Summaries to assist good design in rural areas.

  M4
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when 182W
  the proposal to widen the M4 in the vicinity of Junction 18 was (a) first included and (b) removed from the Government's road programme. [139397]

  Mr. Hill
  The scheme was added to the roads programme in May 1989 and withdrawn in November 1996.

  Coastal Defences (Birling Gap)
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he will receive the report of the inspector on the public inquiry into coastal defences at Birling Gap. [139423]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The Government Office for the South East received the inspector's report on the public inquiry into planning applications for coastal defences at Birling Gap on 14 November. The Secretary of State expects to issue his decisions on these applications early in the new year.

  Railtrack
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the suppliers of new rail sections to Railtrack and the country of origin for each of the last five years, including the specification required concerning(a) tempering, (b) surface hardening and (c) manufacturing method. [139170]

  Mr. Hill
  Railtrack have advised that the former British Steel, now Corns Rail, and Voest Alpine Schienen of Austria had been their sole suppliers until new contracts were awarded in May of this year to Corns Rail, Voest Alpine Schienen and Lucchini SpA of Italy.

  The current specifications relating to the tempering, surface hardening and manufacture of the rails are included in section RT/CE/S/061 of the Railtrack Line Standards Issue 23 of October 2000. Issue 23 is available on CD Rom and Railtrack have arranged for a copy to be placed in the House of Commons Library.

  The proportion of rails subject to particular manufacturing treatments such as tempering and surface hardening continues to depend on the use to which the rails are to be put, since manufacturing specifications vary according to intended traffic loading, line speeds and the geometry of the track.

  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will place in the Library the records from Railtrack regarding the dates on which cracks occurred after the fitting of new rail. [139171]

  Mr. Hill
  Railtrack have advised that it has checked 3,000 sites for gauge corner cracking. The detection and removal of affected rails is a continuous process and the information is not available in the form requested.

  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will place in the Library the Inspection Schedule used by Railtrack to assess track conditions. [139172]

  Mr. Hill
  Railtrack have advised that the Inspection Schedule it uses to assess the condition of the track is included in their Railway Group Standards Issue 5, dated October 2000, section GC/RT5022 on inspection of rail and rail joints.
  183W
  The Railway Group Standard is available on CD Rom and Railtrack have arranged for a copy to be placed in the House Library.

  Mobile Phone Masts
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will review planning guidance with regard to the siting of mobile phone masts near(a) private houses, (b) schools and (c) hospitals; and if he will require local planning authorities to refuse planning applications for new masts in cases where operators have refused to share facilities. [139388]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  A consultation exercise seeking views on possible changes to the planning laws relating to mobile phone masts and associated guidance ended on 31 October 2000. The Department is currently analysing the responses. We shall announce any changes as soon as practicable.

  Current guidance in DETR Circular 4/99 already makes clear the Government's expectation that developers should provide local planning authorities with evidence that they have fully considered the use of existing masts, buildings and other structures before seeking to erect any new mast. It also says that, if the evidence regarding the consideration of alternative sites is not considered satisfactory, the authority may be justified in refusing prior approval or planning permission for the development.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what recent research he has conducted on the(a) health implications and (b) environmental impact of the location of mobile phone masts; and if he will make a statement. [139401]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The Independent Expert Group on Mobile Phones (the Stewart Group) was set up at the request of the then Minister for Public Health to investigate the public health implications of mobile phone technologies. The Group's report was published on 11 May and copies are in the Library. The report reviewed research findings worldwide and made a numbers of recommendations including a recommendation to initiate a substantial independent programme of research. The programme will be launched shortly. The Department has not carried out research into the environmental impact of the location of mobile phone masts.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  China
  Mr. Colman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what plans her Department has for future development work in China. [138110]

  Clare Short
  Since 1997 we have refocused our development work in China away from a concentration on the old Aid and Trade Provision which softened the terms of commercial contracts. We are now building support for health and water, education and environmental 184W
  concerns focused on the needs of the poorest regions and people. We are also supporting state owned Enterprise Reform and prevention of the spread of HIV/AIDS. China has since 1978 focused on the reduction of poverty, and the numbers living on less than 1$ per day have been reduced from 600 million to 120 million.

  Dr. Naysmith
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on support given to China for HIV and AIDS. [138113]

  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what action her Department is taking to combat the spread of HIV/AIDS in China. [138121]

  Clare Short
  HIV/AIDS has come into China across its border with Burma and is a problem of increasing importance. We are supporting the efforts of the Chinese Government to develop a national HIV/AIDS policy, and to test innovative approaches to HIV prevention in the provinces of Sichuan and Yunnan. We are providing £15 million over five years.

  North Korea
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the international aid programmes in North Korea. [138111]

  Mr. Foulkes
  The deprivation and suffering, particularly of the children, which was featured in the 'Dispatches' programme, is principally the result of the policy and action of the Government of North Korea. Since 1998 we have provided over £2.5 million of humanitarian assistance, channelled through UN agencies and international NGOs, focusing particularly on agriculture rehabilitation and food security.

  Zimbabwe
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assistance Her Majesty's Government are providing to Zimbabwe; and what are the aims of her Department's programmes there. [138114]

  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on her aid projects in Zimbabwe. [138120]

  Clare Short
  We are providing assistance for projects which assist the poor in improving rural livelihoods; providing water and sanitation; and access to reproductive health needs. I have recently agreed a commitment of £20 million for HIV/AIDS prevention.

  Renewable Energy
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what efforts are being made by her Department to encourage the development of renewable sources of energy in the developing world. [138115]
  185W
  Clare Short
  We are spending £1.5 million per year on research to improve energy provision for the poor. The work falls under four themes:The development and promotion of renewable energy sources, especially for rural communities;
  The more efficient supply, conversion and use of energy;
  Improved access to clean energy in poorer households;
  Reducing the environmental impacts of energy use.

  We are also supporting the G8 Renewable Energy Task Force and we are major contributors to the Energy Sector Management Assistance Programme (ESMAP). We are also members of the World Renewable Energy Network (WREN).

  I will place a copy of the most recent newsletter in the Library of the House.

  AIDS (Asia)
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what action her Department is taking to assist countries in Asia in combating AIDS. [138116]

  Clare Short
  Combating HIV/AIDS in Asia is one of our major priorities and we are working with international and regional agencies to this end. At country level, we are supporting major HIV/AIDS programmes in India, Bangladesh, Cambodia and China and smaller efforts elsewhere. We are also supporting a variety of community-led initiatives designed to reduce the impact of the epidemic.

  In 1999–2000, DFID spent over £13 million on HIV/AIDS bilateral programmes in Asia. This year, we will contribute over £43 million to the United Nations Population Fund and UNAIDS. Both organisations contribute significantly to anti HIV/AIDS work in Asia.

  Kosovo
  Mr. Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent assessment she has made of the humanitarian situation in Kosovo in respect of children. [138117]

  Clare Short
  We receive regular reports on the humanitarian situation in Kosovo through our own representative and through international humanitarian agencies, including UNICEF. We have provided £2.5 million to UNICEF for programmes in Kosovo, and a total of £12.5 million for the Balkans as a whole.

  Our support to programmes in Kosovo, both directly and through our share of the funding of the programmes of the EC and multilateral agencies, includes support to health care, social welfare, housing and community development.

  Burma
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what discussions she has had with NGOs which are involved in provision of aid to Burma. [138118]
  186W
  Clare Short
  We consulted non-governmental organisations in preparing our Country Strategy Paper on Burma which was published in July, a copy of which will be placed in the Library of the House. I met NGOs concerned with Burma in June.

  Education (Poor Countries)
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what initiatives she is taking to help poor countries improve their education provision. [138119]

  Clare Short
  We are committed to the achievement of universal primary education (UPE) and gender equality as priorities for development. This means making a strong contribution to the international effort to achieve these targets. Our three priorities for action are:

  (i) Contributing to the international policies and programmes designed to achieve education for all.

  (ii) Strong, well targeted country programmes—with priority to sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia—which provide assistance to governments and civil societies committed to UPE and gender equality. We have committed over £400 million to this work since May 1997 and will do more.

  (iii) Knowledge and research strategies and outcomes that will contribute to the ability of the international community. including partner countries, to learn lessons, share experience and monitor progress.

  Indonesia
  Mrs. Betty Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what new initiatives she is taking in Indonesia to support poverty reduction and development. [138122]

  Clare Short
  We published our Country Strategy Paper, setting out the broad framework for UK development assistance to Indonesia, in September. Copies have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Key elements of our development programme include a recently agreed Multistakeholder Forestry Programme, which aims to promote more equitable and sustainable management of Indonesia's forests; technical advice and funding to the Governance Partnership, a facility which provides support to governance reform initiatives identified and prioritised by Indonesian government and civil society; and support for the Community Recovery Programme, an Indonesian civil society response to the economic crisis, providing a "safety net" for those worst affected. We are also exploring with government, civil society and other donors how we might best support pro-poor policy making and budgeting in Indonesia.

  Africa (Small Arms)
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what steps she is taking to halt the spread of small arms in Africa. [138123]

  Clare Short
  We have supported the implementation of the Moratorium on the Import, Export and Manufacture of Light Weapons in West Africa through funding concrete programmes in conjunction with the UN. We have provided direct support for the Southern Africa Development Corporation (SADC) Action Plan against the proliferation of small arms in that region and helped to fund some of their projects. We have also actively
  187W
  supported the Nairobi declaration on the problem of the Proliferation of Illicit Small Arms and Light Weapons in the Great Lakes Region and in the Horn of Africa and we are assisting in the development and implementation of an Action Plan in support of this Declaration. We plan further efforts to stem the proliferation and misuse of small arms and light weapons.

  CPA Conference
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many delegates to the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association Annual Conference in Edinburgh visited her Department's stall; and what the take-up was of publications and other materials from the stall by delegates. [138124]

  Clare Short
  We estimate that over 200 delegates visited the Department for International Development stand during the Conference, representing over a third of those attending. There was considerable interest in the publications, which covered a wide range of issues about the Department and its work.

  Palestinian Authority
  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on recent UK development aid to the Palestinian Authority. [138125]

  Clare Short
  The UK's priority is to continue support to build a Palestinian nation through economic and social development that takes full account of the needs of the poor. As well as supporting the peace process, our development programme seeks to improve parliamentary democracy, Palestinian basic health care, education, access to water and sanitation, gender equality, legislation, integration into the global economy and improving the efficiency and accountability of the Palestinian Authority. We are also seeking to increase the effectiveness of our support via multilateral institutions, in particular the EC and the UN Relief Works Agency.

  In response to the recent troubles DFID has provided $100,000 to the International Committee of the Red Cross for medical assistance and two emergency experts to the UN Office for the co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs. We are following events in the region closely and will respond where we can to developments.

  St. Helena
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development when she expects to make a decision on providing an airfield on the island of St. Helena. [138126]

  Clare Short
  A comparative study of the options for sea and air access to St. Helena is currently under way. The team undertaking the work visited the island in mid-October. We expect their draft report by the end of this year. We will then discuss the report and its recommendations with the St. Helena Government. The results of the study cannot be prejudged and no presumption can be made that it will lead to support being offered for the provision of an airfield. We hope to reach decisions in early 2001.
  188W

  Ethiopia
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on her policy of development aid towards Ethiopia. [138127]

  Clare Short
  I discussed our role in Ethiopia with the Ethiopian Prime Minister in Addis Ababa at the weekend. As the prospects for lasting peace become firmer, we are reviewing how we should re-engage there. Initially we will be strengthening our work through multilateral development agencies such as the World bank and the European Commission. We also strengthen our work on food security.

  Overseas Territories
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development when she last met the chief ministers of the overseas territories; what matters were discussed at that meeting; and if she will make a statement. [138128]

  Clare Short
  My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State is responsible for development assistance to the Overseas Territories. He last met Chief Ministers during the second annual Overseas Territories Consultative Council meetings from 3–4 October 2000. These ensure that there is opportunity during the year for UK Ministers to meet political leaders from the Overseas Territories for an exchange of views on a jointly determined agenda. This year's talks included discussion on sustainable development, human rights, accessible justice and internal security.

  ILO
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what estimate she has made of the ILO's contribution to promoting international development. [138129]

  Clare Short
  Our assessment is that the International Labour Organisation's priorities are evolving in a direction which will increase their developmental benefits. The ILO's focus on "Decent Work" should achieve a greater emphasis on promoting secure livelihoods for poor people.

  Misuse of Aid
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what steps she is taking to ensure that British aid is not misused. [138130]

  Clare Short
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter) on 7 November 2000,Official Report, column 159W.

  Corruption
  Mr. Dobbin
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what help her Department is giving to developing countries to fight corruption. [138131]

  Clare Short
  Since 1997 we have strengthened our efforts to fight corruption. This includes support for national anti-corruption strategies, which may include the establishment of specific anti-corruption agencies; strengthening public sector capacity for budgetary and
  189W
  financial management, procurement, accounting and audit; reforming civil service management; enhancing public oversight through strengthened public accounts and other parliamentary committees, and supporting civil society to promote transparency and accountability. We are also collaborating with other development agencies and contributing to multilateral efforts, in particular through supporting the implementation of international conventions against bribery in international trade and strengthening regional anti-money-laundering mechanisms.

  Aid Targeting
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent discussions she has had with her European counterparts on proposals for the better targeting of aid. [138132]

  Clare Short
  I most recently met EU Development Ministers and Commission representatives at the 10 November Development Council. The Government are implementing a detailed strategy (a copy of which is in the Library of the House) to press the European Commission and other EU member states radically to improve the poverty focus and effectiveness of EC development assistance. To this end the 10 November Development Council adopted a Development Policy Declaration with poverty reduction, and eventual eradication, as its central objective. I will continue to press for EC resource priorities to be shifted to reflect this new policy.

DEFENCE

  Defence Aviation Repair Agency
  Mr. John Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress the Chief Executive of DARA has made in achieving his Agency's key targets 1 to 5 for the financial year 2000–01. [138163]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Chief Executive of DARA is on course to exceed the Agency's key targets 1, 2 and 5 and is on target to meet key targets 3 and 4.

  Mr. John Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the role and responsibilities are of the Staff Officer to the Chief Executive of the Defence Aviation Repair Agency. [139582]

  Mr. Spellar
  The role of the Staff Officer to the DARA Chief Executive is to provide Secretariat support to the Chief Executive in the running of a £500 million turnover business, with over 5,000 employees and on four sites across the UK.

  Specifically:

  (a) Acting as Secretary to DARA board-level meetings.

  (b) Preparing draft documents for the Chief Executive.

  (c) Preparing comprehensive briefing material for meetings including the Ministerial Advisory Board.

  (d) Drafting responses to parliamentary questions.

  (e) Handling media inquiries.

  Indonesia (Arms Trade)
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what percentage of the United Kingdom's arms trade was with the Moluccas Islands of Indonesia on average in the last five years. [139030]
  190W
  Dr. Moonie
  HM Customs and Excise data collection methods do not allow for the identification of the destination of goods below country level and it is therefore not possible to provide the specific information requested. Details of identified exports of military equipment to individual countries, including Indonesia, are published in Part III of the annual report on Strategic Export Controls. Annual reports have been published covering each of the last three years and copies are available from the Library of the House. Comparable information relating to earlier years is not available.

  Mine Detection
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what concepts have been developed by the UK Defence Evaluation and Research Agency for mine detection; what the cost of the latest version of the technology demonstrator is; what the technology demonstrator is based on; and if he will make a statement. [138979]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Defence Evaluation and Research Agency is undertaking a number of research tasks for the Ministry of Defence in mine detection. There are three applied research technology demonstrators, aimed at proof of principle demonstrations. These are:

  1. The Advanced Hand Held Mine Detector (AHHMD) technology demonstrator programme that started in April 1995. AHHMD is a man-portable, although not necessarily strictly `hand held', system. Research expenditure has been approximately £3 million over five years. The demonstrator is based on integration of Metal Detection, Ground Penetrating Radar and Quadruple Resonance sensors.

  2. The Mine Detection, neutralisation and Route Marking System (MINDER) technology demonstrator programme that started in April 1997. MINDER is a land vehicle mounted system. Research expenditure will be in the order of £4 million over five years. The demonstrator is based on integration of close-in Metal Detection and Ground Penetrating Radar sensor arrays and forward looking Ultra Wide Band Radar and Polarised Infra-Red sensors.

  3. The Remote Minefield Detection System (REMIDS) technology demonstrator programme is aimed at minefield detection rather than individual mines and began in 1995. Research expenditure will be in the order of £6 million over six years. The demonstrator is based on Ultra Wide Band Synthetic Aperture Radar and Polarised Infra-Red sensors together with a mine detection workstation.

  Military Equipment
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what guidelines have been set for the future Scout and Cavalry system and tactical reconnaissance armoured combat equipment requirement; what ISTAR capabilities TRACER and FSCS will employ; and if he will make a statement. [138976]

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

  Letter from Robert Walmsley to Mr. Mike Hancock, dated 22 November 2000:
  I am replying to your question to the Secretary of State for Defence on the collaborative Future Scout and Cavalry System and Tactical Reconnaissance Armoured Combat Equipment Requirement (TRACER) programme. This matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief of Defence Procurement and Chief Executive of the Defence Procurement Agency.

  191W
  You asked what guidelines have been set for the programme. In approving the programme, Minister (Defence Procurement) directed that the work on TRACER should be part of an integrated strategy of studies which would include work to determine the role that Unmanned Air Vehicles would play in battlefield reconnaissance. Balance of Investment studies will inform a decision on the optimum mix of sensors and platforms to meet the land commander's critical information requirements.
  On the question of what ISTAR capabilities will be employed, TRACER/FSCS will form the land-based component of the wider Information, Surveillance, Target Acquisition and Reconnaissance (ISTAR) assets. To meet commanders' requirements for detailed combat intelligence, these systems will need to be capable of gathering, processing and disseminating accurate and timely information. Of primary importance will be information on the enemy strength, deployment and equipment. To provide a complete and detailed picture of the battlefield Commanders will also require data on terrain, navigability, obstacles and routes.
  In the context of TRACER, two competing consortia are considering a wide range of candidate technologies. These include surveillance systems, a sophisticated sensor suite, a balanced survivability package including stealth technology, an improved target detection and recognition capability, Defensive Aids Suites and physical protection in the form of advanced armour technologies.
  A decision on the final system architecture will take account of the outcome of the current Project Definition phase, due to complete in July 2002, and the parallel studies into the use of Unmanned Air Vehicles for battlefield reconnaissance.

  Merlin Helicopters
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the first four Merlin helicopters ordered by the RAF will be in service. [138796]

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

  Letter from Robert Walmsley to Mr. Eric Martlew, dated 22 November 2000:
  I am replying to your question to the Secretary of State for Defence about when the first four Merlin helicopters ordered by the RAF will be in service. This matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief of Defence Procurement and Chief Executive of the Defence Procurement Agency.
  In June 2000 the Merlin Mk3 formal In Service Date was achieved with delivery of the sixth helicopter. This milestone enabled the start of RAF aircrew training and was one element of a phased introduction into service. I assume the question refers to the handover of the first four helicopters to RAF Benson which had been scheduled for 6 November, but was postponed following an accident involving a RN Merlin MkI helicopter and the subsequent suspension of flying. A new date for the handover will be confirmed once flying resumes.

  Cluster Bombs
  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if further trials of cluster bombs are planned at the Luce Bay range. [139240]

  Mr. Spellar
  There are no current plans for further trials of cluster bombs at Luce Bay range.

  Royal Navy Security Procedures
  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he has reviewed Royal Navy security procedures following the terrorist attack on the USS Cole; and if he will make a statement. [139348]
  192W
  Mr. Spellar
  The recent terrorist attacks in Yemen highlight the continuing terrorist threat to UK and allied forces and interests. The threat to our personnel and assets and the security procedures we take to counter the threat are kept under constant review.

  Defence Diversification Agency
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the Defence Diversification Agency; and if he will make a statement on its future. [139355]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Defence Diversification Agency (DDA) has made an impressive start in implementing our defence diversification policies. Well over 300 companies have been given help to solve their business problems by drawing on defence-based science and technology. We are currently considering the future of the agency, and how best to take forward our diversification policies, in the light of our Public Private Partnership plans for the Defence Evaluation Research Agency.

  Strategic Tanker Aircraft
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if DERA Boscombe Down is being used as the public sector comparator or reference project in the private finance initiative procurement of future strategic tanker aircraft; [139163]

  (2) how many wide-bodied jet aircraft will be accommodated at DERA Boscombe Down under the proposed future strategic tanker aircraft project; [139162]

  (3) if he will list the members of the four industry consortia involved in the future strategic tanker aircraft project; and which of them propose to operate the project from (a) RAF Brize Norton and (b) DERA Boscombe Down. [139160]

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

  Letter from Robert Walmsley to Mr. Robert Key, dated 22 November 2000:
  I am replying to your questions (139163, 139162 & 139160) to the Secretary of State for Defence about DERA Boscombe Down and the Future Strategic Tanker Aircraft (FSTA) project. This matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief of Defence Procurement and Chief Executive of the Defence Procurement Agency.
  FSTA is planned to begin replacing the RAF's current fleet of VC10 and Tristar tanker/transport aircraft from around 2007. We are currently investigating the potential for achieving a service based solution to the requirement under the Private Finance Initiative. Our core requirement is for an air to air refuelling service with some elements of air transport capability. It is not for a replacement operating base.
  The current fleet is based at RAF Brize Norton in Oxfordshire. We are aware that DERA is promoting the Boscombe Down airfield as a potential operating base for FSTA and seeking to act as a commercial partner to the FSTA consortia. Our work on development of the Public Sector Comparator has concluded that RAF Brize Norton is likely to offer the most cost effective operating base for the FSTA service. However, I should stress that this is not a final decision: under a PFI procurement strategy we are prepared to consider an innovative bid that utilises an alternative base. It would need to demonstrate value for money whilst protecting operational capability.

  193W
  The exact number of aircraft required to meet our output based requirements for the FSTA service will be for the consortia to propose. However, we currently understand that, whatever operating base is selected, between 20 and 25 wide-bodied civil aircraft will be needed. The following consortia submitted outline proposals in November 1999:
  Air Reach—Rolls Royce, and now including Peel Airports and ASIG
  BAE Systems
  Strategic Support Management—comprising SERCO and Spectrum Capital
  Eurotanker—comprising Brown and Root, FRA and Thomson CSF

  In submitting these proposals all of the consortia favoured RAF Brize Norton as the main operating base. However, the makeup of each consortium is still to be finalised and we have not yet launched the formal bidding process. It is, therefore, too early to say whether a Boscombe Down solution is likely to feature in the final bids. It will be for the individual consortia to decide how to frame their proposed solutions.

  Animal Experiments
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many animals were moved between DERA and CAMR at Porton Down, Wiltshire in the last year for which figures are available. [138916]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 21 November 2000]: A small number of animals have been moved between DERA's Chemical and Biological Defence Sector at Porton Down and its neighbour the Department of Health Centre for Applied Microbiology and Research (CAMR).

  The tables show the numbers of animals involved from 1995 to 1999:

  Table 1: Numbers of animals moved from CBD to CAMR

  Species/year

  Number

  Rhesus monkeys

  1997

  14

  Late 1996/early 1997

  14

  1996

  12

  Rats

  1996

  2

  1995

  40

  Table 2: Numbers of animals moved from CAMR to CBD

  Species/year

  Number

  Mice

  1999

  28

  1996

  180

  1995

  60

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the animal procedures(a) being conducted at and (b) planned for the area known as Hard Target at Porton Down. [138915]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 21 November 2000]: DERA's Chemical and Biological Defence Sector at Porton Down has not undertaken any procedures involving living animals at the site on the Porton Down Range known as Hard Target, and none are planned.
  194W
  However, procedures under the terms of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 have been undertaken at another site on the Porton Range which is several hundred metres from Hard Target.

  This research was undertaken on anaesthetised animals to validate physical models used to predict human vulnerability to explosions and the performance of candidate protection systems. Additionally, anaesthetised animals were also used to validate the performance of personal blast protection clothing to protect military personnel from the effects of explosions.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many genetically modified animals were used in procedures, broken down by species, at Porton Down in each year for the last five years. [138917]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 21 November 2000]: DERA's Chemical and Biological Defence Sector at Porton Down uses only one genetically modified animal species, the mouse, in its research.

  The table shows the numbers of genetically modified mice used in procedures, as reported to the Home Office, for the past five years.

  Year

  Procedures

  1995

  120

  1996

  191

  1997

  75

  1998

  333

  1999

  259

  Iraq
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list each type of ordnance released by UK aircraft in response to violations of the southern No-Fly Zone in Iraq since 20 December 1998, stating in each case the proportion they represent of the overall tonnage of ordnance released by UK aircraft since that date, the estimated cost per unit and the estimated cost of stock replacement in each category; and if he will make a statement. [139704]

  Mr. Hoon
  Between 20 December 1998 and 17 November 2000, the UK has employed only precision guided munitions over the southern No-Fly Zone. Some 85 per cent., by weight, were Paveway II (1,000 lb) Laser Guided Bombs at a unit cost of some £37,000. There are no plans to replace this weapon once current stocks are exhausted. The balance were Paveway III (2,000 lb) Laser Guided Bombs for which the current unit and replacement cost is some £85,000.

  These precision guided weapons were only employed in self-defence against the Iraqi Integrated Air Defence System, which continues to target coalition aircraft carrying out humanitarian patrols.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Post Office Closures
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to his answer to the hon.
  195W
  Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mr. Fraser) of 30 October 2000, Official Report, column 224W, if he will provide a breakdown of the 1,183 sub-post office closures by (a) region and (b) urban/rural status. [136707]

  Mr. Byers
  A detailed Post Office check of their original estimate of post office closures in the first half of their current financial year has confirmed that the actual figure is 34 less than their estimate. Accordingly the net total of post office closures since the end of March 1997 is 1,149.

  The 1,149 closures between the end of March 1997 and the end of September 2000 comprised 823 rural offices (defined as offices located in communities of less than 6,300 inhabitants) and 326 urban offices.

  Since the end of March 2000 the Post Office network is no longer organised on the basis of regions but on the basis of territories.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list, by region, the number of sub-post office managers and proprietors who, during the past three months, have submitted notice of their intention to close their sub-post office; what the corresponding number was in each of the last three years; and if he will make a statement.[137939]

  Mr. Byers
  I am informed by the Post Office that closure decisions are not taken by sub-postmasters.

  Mr. Ruffley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many sub-post offices closed in Suffolk(a) from May to December 1997, (b) in 1998, (c) in 1999 and (d) from January. [138414]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  [holding answer 14 November 2000]: I understand from the Post Office that figures are not available in the form requested.

  Postal Workers
  Mr. Ruffley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many postal workers were employed by Royal Mail in delivering mail in Suffolk in(a) 1997, (b) 1998 and (c) 1999. [138403]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  I understand from the Post Office that figures for the number of people employed by Royal Mail are not held centrally on a county basis.

  Mobile Phone Transmission Equipment
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what regulations govern the installation of mobile phone transmission equipment on telephone masts. [138716]

  Ms Hewitt
  Operators who have been assigned the Telecommunications Code, set out in Schedule 2 of the Telecommunications Act 1984, have permitted development rights under the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995. Under its permitted development rights an operator can install mobile phone transmission equipment on a mast of 15 metres or less in height without the need for a planning application. However, developments undertaken in this way are subject to a prior approval procedure. Under this procedure a planning authority has 42 days in which to comment on the siting and appearance of a mast and can 196W
  refuse approval where it believes the development would pose a serious threat to amenity. Conversely, the installation of masts above 15 metres in height requires a planning application, as does the installation of any masts in a designated area such as a National Park or an area of outstanding natural beauty.

  Least Developed Countries
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has made to the EU to remove rice from the EC Trade Directorate's Least and Less Developed Country products draft regulation; and if he will make a statement. [139344]

  Mr. Caborn
  None. The UK supports the Commission's proposal for tariff and quota-free access for all remaining products (except arms) from the Least Developed Countries including a short transitional period for three sensitive agricultural products.

  This is in line with the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister when he made clear during his Mansion House speech on 22 November 1999 that the Government support duty-free access for all goods from the Least Developed Countries.

  Social Enterprises
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what further action he is taking to promote social enterprises. [139261]

  Ms Hewitt
  Through the Small Business Service, the Department of Trade and Industry is taking a number of measures to promote social enterprises. The measures include:Ensuring that Business Links meet the needs of all types of businesses in their localities, including social enterprises;
  Working with the British Bankers Association and Social Enterprise London to produce guidance on the sector for business support organisations and banks;
  Supporting the development by Social Enterprise London of a pilot set of training modules to help business advisers provide better support for social enterprises;
  Promoting the role of businesses, including social enterprises, in tackling social exclusion through the Phoenix Fund. The Fund, which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry announced in November 1999 and which has an initial budget of £30 million over three years, seeks to promote enterprise in disadvantaged communities. It has four parts:
  A Development Fund to promote innovative ways of supporting enterprise in deprived areas.
  A national network of mentors to pre and early stage business start-ups through the Business Volunteer Mentors Association.
  A Challenge Fund to help resource Community Finance Initiatives (CFIs).
  Loan Guarantee to help co-finance commercial and charitable lending to CFIs.

  A number of organisations supporting social enterprises have applied under the fund and their applications are currently being considered. Announcements about the first successful bids will be made shortly.

  In addition, the Small Business Service will be undertaking a mapping exercise to assess the current and potential economic impact of social enterprises.

  Memo Leak
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) of 6 July 2000,Official Report, column 250W, if he will publish the findings of the inquiry into the leaking of a memo from Mr. Andrew Fraser. [139248]

  Mr. Byers
  It has not been the practice under successive administrators to publish the findings of internal inquiries of this kind.

  Departmental Payments
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what was(a) the average and (b) the longest period taken by his Department to pay its bills in the past year. [139277]

  Mr. Byers
  The information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Minimum Wage
  Mr. Jim Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry which companies in(a) Scotland and (b) the UK have been prosecuted for violating the National Minimum Wage legislation. [139425]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  There have been no criminal prosecutions. The National Minimum Wage Act provides both civil and criminal powers of enforcement. The Inland Revenue has issued:Enforcement notices: (a) 25 in Scotland and (b) 278 in the United Kingdom.
  Penalty notices: (a) five in Scotland and (b) 38 in the United Kingdom.
  The Inland Revenue has taken (a) one Scottish and (b) 23 United Kingdom companies to employment tribunals to recover arrears of pay.

  The Government cannot disclose the names of employers against whom civil actions have been taken.

  Mr. Jim Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list those companies in Scotland which have been investigated for failure to pay the National Minimum Wage. [139427]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  No. This information is confidential and cannot therefore be disclosed.

  Mr. Jim Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many individual complaints have been received in Scotland from employees who have not received their legal entitlement to the National Minimum Wage. [139428]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  Since April 1999, 366 formal complaints have been made to the Inland Revenue from workers in Scotland who have not been paid the National Minimum Wage.

  Radio Frequencies
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on protocols that exist between this country and other EU member states on the allocation of digital radio frequencies; and what 198W
  reduction of available frequencies in regions of the UK in close proximity to other EU member states he expects. [139581]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Radiocommunications Agency is responsible for the allocation of spectrum for broadcasting services and for ensuring that the UK's use of radio frequencies, including for digital radio, does not cause interference within the UK or in other countries and that other countries' transmissions do not interfere with UK services. The international co-ordination of frequency use is ordered by the decisions of the International Telecommunication Union. An international agreement, known as the Wiesbaden Plan (1995), which was agreed by the European radio administrations, set the parameters within which the UK and neighbouring countries may co-ordinate bilaterally their respective frequency plans for digital radio.

  It is too early to consider the outcome of the international negotiations on the sharing of spectrum for individual radio stations given the current state of the planning and international co-ordination processes within Europe, including the prospect that further frequencies for digital radio may become available for this service in the next few years arising out of a European Planning Conference set for 2002.

  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has(a) to conduct a national audit of radio frequencies and their usage and (b) to increase the number of frequencies open for new local radio stations. [139575]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Radiocommunications Agency, supported by the Radio Authority and the BBC, commissioned a survey of the current use of the FM spectrum, the efficiency with which it has been planned and the scope for planning additional services. The report was published in June 2000 and is available on the Radiocommunications Agency website at www.radio.gov.uk and copies will be placed in the Libraries of the House shortly.

  In recent years, additional spectrum has been made available for radio broadcasting in the FM Band. In addition, spectrum has been made available in the VHF band to enable the launch of Digital Radio. Further frequencies may become available for local digital radio services as a result of a European Planning Conference in 2002.

  Cold Calling (Utility Companies)
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what plans he has to regulate cold calling by utilities, with specific reference to older residents; [139690]

  (2) what safeguards exist for customers who have agreed to change utility companies as a result of a cold call. [139691]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 21 November 2000]: The Consumer Protection (Cancellation of Contracts Away from Business Premises) Regulations 1987 give consumers a seven-day cooling off period when buying goods or services worth over £35 during an unsolicited home visit or telephone call. It is an offence not to tell consumers of these rights.
  199W
  There are additional safeguards in respect of gas and electricity supply. In 1998, with the Government's encouragement, the Office of Gas and Electricity Markets (OFGEM) introduced a licence condition for gas and electricity suppliers governing sales and marketing practices. This includes rules on the proper selection and training of sales staff who are in direct contact with domestic customers, and on the auditing of sales activities. The condition was extended for a further two years in March 2000, and OFGEM is currently consulting on strengthening it. OFGEM also works closely with individual companies on an ongoing basis to resolve problems that lead to customer complaints. The new Gas and Electricity Consumer Council established under the Utilities Act 2000 has said it will also be a vigorous advocate of the consumer interest in this area.

  Detailed regulation of the privatised utilities is a matter for the sectoral regulator. However, the Government are always concerned that consumers, particularly the vulnerable, should be protected against the distress and confusion that inappropriate selling techniques can cause.

  This is reflected in the Utilities Act 2000 which gave OFGEM and the Gas and Electricity Consumer Council a specific responsibility to have regard to the interests of vulnerable individuals, including the disabled, the chronically sick, the elderly, those on low incomes and those in rural areas.

  Science Budget
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the allocation of the science budget. [139831]

  Mr. Byers
  As a result of the Spending Review, the science budget has been increased by £725 million over the next three years. This represents an increase in the Government's investment in science of an average of 7 per cent. per year in real terms over the next three years. Once again the Government are making it clear that they regard a healthy science and engineering base as critical to the nation's well-being.

  After taking advice from the Director General of the Research Councils, I have decided that the science budget should be allocated as follows. A total of £356 million is for investment in science and engineering research; of this, £252 million is to be spent over three years on three high-profile programmes across the Research Councils.

  Resource and capital, figures include baseline and allocations of new funds

  £ million

  2001–02

  2002–03

  2003–04

  Total

  Allocations to Cross-Council programmes

  Genomics

  15.000

  39.500

  55.500

  110.000

  E-science

  13.000

  29.500

  55.500

  98.000

  Basic technology

  2.000

  15.000

  27.000

  44.000

  Allocations to Research Councils1

  MRC

  339.614

  349.930

  358.151

  1,047.695

  BBSRC

  209.987

  219.603

  226.151

  655.741

  NERC

  191.865

  201.414

  208.750

  602.030

  EPSRC

  426.202

  429.540

  436.911

  1,292.653

  PPARC

  203.289

  212.383

  217.208

  632.881

  ESRC

  73.447

  79.263

  85.033

  237.742

  CCLRC

  6.421

  6.613

  7.452

  20.486

  200W
  The three programmes are as follows.
  Genomics: a £110 million investment to increase understanding of gene function and related applications. This should lead to the development of new diagnostics, drugs and materials.
  E-science: a £98 million investment to solve key problems of processing, communicating, storing and accessing data across a range of scientific disciplines, with additional investment to develop core generic technologies. This investment is absolutely essential for large scale, modern science, but I expect it to have important industrial implications over the coming decade.
  Basic technology: a £44 million investment to build up the UK's technology capability. This has value in itself but will also act as the springboard for more advanced science.

  A £1 billion Science Research Investment Fund (SRIF) will fund renewal and development, of which £375 million will come from the science budget, £300 million from the Department for Education and Employment, and £225 million from the Wellcome Trust. My Department is currently discussing with other interested parties the basis for the allocating of £900 million of this fund to universities.

  The remaining £100 million of SRIF will be invested in Research Council Institutes and large science facilities. The allocations I am announcing today to the Research Councils include £32 million of this. The remainder will be allocated later this year.

  There will be a new £140 million Higher Education Innovation Fund to encourage exploitation of knowledge by Higher Education Institutions. This will incorporate the current Higher Education Reach Out to Business and the Community Fund (HEROBC). This total includes around £60 million from the Department for Education and Employment, and £80 million from the science budget. There is also £20 million from the science budget for the University Challenge and Science Enterprise Challenge Schemes.

  £34 million is being allocated to the Research Councils to fund increases in the basic PhD stipends from £6,800 this academic year to £9,000 in 2003–04. This represents an increase of 23 per cent. in real terms over the period, following the Comprehensive Spending Review in 1998. It sends another clear signal that the Government believe that postgraduate research should no longer be seen as a Cinderella career choice.

  The detailed allocation is as follows. Further details are available in a report I am publishing today, "The Science Budget 2001–02 to 2003–04", which I have placed in the Library of both Houses.
  201W

  Resource and capital, figures include baseline and allocations of new funds

  £ million

  2001–02

  2002–03

  2003–04

  Total

  Allocations to other areas

  Research Council Pensions Schemes

  26.970

  28.450

  29.740

  85.160

  Royal Society

  25.945

  28.745

  29.245

  83.935

  Royal Academy of Engineering

  4.270

  4.770

  5.270

  14.310

  DIAMOND

  20.000

  20.000

  20.000

  60.000

  Joint Infrastructure Fund

  125.000

  —

  —

  125.000

  Science Research Investment Fund

  —

  125.000

  250.000

  375.000

  Joint Research Equipment Initiative

  —

  10.000

  10.000

  30.000

  Capital yet to be allocated

  —

  34.000

  34.000

  68.000

  Higher Education Innovation Fund

  20.000

  20.000

  40.000

  80.000

  University Challenge

  —

  5.000

  —

  5.000

  Science Enterprise Challenge

  —

  5.000

  10.000

  15.000

  Exploitation of Discoveries at public sector research establishment

  10.000

  —

  —

  10.000

  Foresight Challenge

  —

  3.000

  5.000

  8.000

  Cambridge-MIT Institute

  14.000

  14.000

  14.000

  42.000

  OST Initiatives

  3.000

  3.100

  3.350

  9.450

  OST Administration Costs

  11.192

  11.192

  11.192

  33.576

  Exchange Rate and Contingency Reserve

  15.264

  15.464

  16.014

  46.742

  Total

  1,766.467

  1,910.467

  2,155.467

  5,832.401

  1 Excluding Cross-Council programmes

  Post Offices
  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what action is being taken by the Post Office to improve security measures at Weoley Castle sub-post office in Birmingham and to re-open the premises. [139107]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  I understand from the Post Office that in interviewing potential candidates to take over the running of Weoley Castle sub-post office, security measures will be discussed.

  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what action the Post Office will take to maintain the availability of accessible counter services to residents during temporary closure of urban sub-post offices. [139108]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  The Post Office have advised that they use a range of measures to try to minimise inconvenience to customers when sub-post offices close temporarily. According to the circumstances, these measures may include: appointing a temporary sub-postmaster who can operate the sub-post office until a permanent solution can be found, subject to availability of existing or alternative premises; managing the office directly with Post Office staff; redirecting customers to nearby post offices. In some circumstances the use of a mobile sub-post office service may be an option.

  Mr. Lilley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many sub-post offices have sufficient storage and handling space to act as collection, return and payment points for e-commerce. [138040]

  Mr. Byers
  The Post Office have begun a six month trial in some 800 post offices in the South West offering customers the facility to nominate a post office as an alternative collection point for packets and parcels. An objective of the trial is to assess the operational implications, including the space required at post offices, of offering this service throughout the network.

  Horizon Programme
  Mr. Lilley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what functions are performed by the Horizon programme information technology installed in post offices. [138039]

  Mr. Byers
  I understand from the Post Office that the Horizon system is now installed in nearly 15,000 post offices.

  A major upgrade of software for the Horizon system was introduced from 23 October and now includes smartcard compatibility for the automated payments service, direct electronic links between branches and the stock and cash management system and an electronic messaging system. The Horizon equipment has the latest touch screen technology and a small scale monitor, bar code reader, printer and keyboard with card reader for magnetic swipe cards and smartcards. Horizon also operates an electronic point of sale service, which captures transaction details, centrally manages product changes such as tariff updates, and produces an electronic cash account recording weekly payments and receipts which is electronically transferred to the central accounting system. An order book control service for the Benefits Agency is operated by the system, using a barcode reader providing an electronic stop list to reduce fraudulent order book encashment. In addition Horizon integrates several stand alone automated payment systems enabling payment of utilities bills using magnetic swipecards and barcoded bills.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Arms Exports (Israel)
  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which of the components or equipment given Open Individual Export Licences by Her Majesty's Government since 1997 for sale to the Israeli
  203W
  armed forces can be used in firearms, tanks or helicopters of the types used by the Israeli armed forces in action against civilians in the Occupied Territories. [138010]

  Mr. Hain
  With regard to details of the equipment licensed for export to Israel on Open Individual Export Licences (OIELs) since 2 May 1997, I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to her by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Competition and Consumer Affairs on 17 November 2000,Official Report, column 809W.

  All applications to this Government for licences to export defence equipment have been, and continue to be, considered on a case by case basis against the strict export licensing criteria.

  We have no evidence that equipment licensed for export by this Government has been used against civilians in the Occupied Territories during the recent violence. Should any such evidence appear we would immediately consider revoking the licences concerned.

  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 13 November 2000,Official Report, column 511W, what assurances his Department has been given through contacts with the Israeli Government and senior Israeli military that equipment containing components licensed for export to the Israeli armed forces by Her Majesty's Government since 1990 has not been used (a) against civilians in the Occupied Territories and (b) in southern Lebanon. [139243]

  Mr. Hain
  We have no evidence that equipment licensed for export to Israel by this Government has been used by Israeli Security Forces against civilians in the Occupied Territories or in southern Lebanon. We would be very concerned if such evidence came to light and would immediately consider revoking the licences concerned. We continue to monitor the situation closely and have sought an assurance from the Israeli Government that no equipment or components licensed for export from the UK have been used against civilians in the Occupied Territories or in southern Lebanon.

  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 13 November 2000,Official Report, column 511W, what assurances his Department has been given through contacts with the Israeli Government and senior Israeli military that equipment licensed for export to the Israeli armed forces by Her Majesty's Government since 1990 has not been used (a) against civilians in the Occupied Territories and (b) in southern Lebanon. [139244]

  Mr. Hain
  We have no evidence that equipment licensed for export to Israel by this Government has been used by Israeli Security Forces against civilians in the Occupied Territories or in southern Lebanon. If such evidence came to light we would immediately consider revoking the licences concerned. We continue to monitor the situation closely and have sought an assurance from the Israeli Government that no equipment or components licensed for export from the UK have been used against civilians in the Occupied
  Territories or in southern Lebanon.

  EU Charter of Fundamental Rights
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list those constitutional traditions which are common to the member states of the EU, as described in the preamble to the draft Charter of Fundamental Rights. [138659]

  Mr. Vaz
  The preamble alludes to Article 6(2) of the Treaty on European Union. In accordance with this Article, Community law includes principles which are drawn from those recognised in the constitutions and legal systems of all the member states. Article 6(2) of the TEU does not define the constitutional traditions which are common to the member states, but the case law of the European Court of Justice indicates that they are to be considered on a case-by-case basis in relation to the particular legal tradition in the member states. In most cases, the fundamental human rights concerned are found in the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights, which all member states are party.

  Saudi Arabia
  Mr. Hilary Benn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action Her Majesty's Government are taking on human rights abuses in Saudi Arabia; and if he will make a statement. [138805]

  Mr. Hain
  We have concerns about the human rights situation in Saudi Arabia, including the implementation of UN human rights instruments, issues relating to the judicial process, discrimination against women and non-Muslims and restrictions on freedom of expression, movement, assembly and worship.

  We are firmly committed to constructive engagement on human rights with Saudi Arabia and discuss the issue regularly with the Saudis at all levels.

  Asthma Inhalers
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish the evidence in support of his Department's statement that asthma inhalers intended for use in Iraq were found on sale in Lebanon. [139055]

  Mr. Hain
  Glaxo Wellcome have confirmed to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office that about 15,000 Ventolin inhalers for the treatment of asthma, part of a shipment sent to Iraq under the UN "Oil for Food" programme earlier this year, were subsequently found on sale on the Lebanese blackmarket.

  US Elections
  Mr. Sarwar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the recent elections held in the United States of America. [138998]

  Mr. Battle
  We look forward to working with whomever is elected the next President of the United States, and with the new Congress.

  Middle East
  Mr. Sarwar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the current situation in the Middle East. [138999]
  205W
  Mr. Hain
  I am appalled by the recent violence and tragic deaths in the Middle East. I urge the parties to end the violence and return to negotiations. Only a negotiated settlement can provide a just and lasting solution to the Middle East Peace Process. Violence is a dead-end for all. Britain will remain actively engaged, doing all it can to bring about a just and lasting peace.

  International Criminal Court
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has made to the Government of the United States about proposals for the International Criminal Court. [139343]

  Mr. Hain
  The Government regularly urge the United States Government to sign the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. We have made clear to the US, both bilaterally and with EU Partners, our concerns about the proposal the US put forward earlier this year.

  Cuba
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with the President of Cuba. [139489]

  Mr. Battle
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has not had any recent discussions with the President of Cuba.

  Colombia (Presidential Visit)
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the Colombian president will next visit the UK; and what meetings the Government will hold with him. [139661]

  Mr. Battle
  There are currently no plans for President Pastrana to visit the UK.

  Diego Garcia
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 15 November 2000,Official Report, column 686W, on Diego Garcia, if he will list the research programmes on Diego Garcia being undertaken by the US authorities for which they have sought UK approval over the last five years. [139616]

  Mr. Battle
  Two research programmes have been undertaken by the US authorities in the last five years. They were:(1) Environmental Impact Assessment of ship husbandry activities at Diego Garcia (undertaken as request of BLOT Government)

  General Dental Service: number of denture treatment items, 1990–91 to 1999–2000

  England

  Thousand

  Item

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  Synthetic Resin

  Full upper and lower

  326.6

  332.9

  307.4

  269.3

  262.7

  241.5

  219.8

  214.4

  197.9

  177.9

  Full upper (only)

  90.9

  104.5

  95.5

  85.0

  79.3

  75.4

  73.7

  70.7

  66.8

  60.7

  Full lower (only)

  46.8

  51.5

  47.3

  44.1

  43.6

  39.3

  38.5

  36.1

  36.3

  34.0

  Partial denture

  378.2

  402.4

  398.1

  374.2

  365.5

  354.6

  353.6

  348.3

  347.5

  337.0

  Other combinations of upper and lower

  144.2

  155.7

  149.0

  133.3

  130.0

  118.6

  117.3

  114.7

  114.7

  111.7

  Total for synthetic resin

  986.8

  1,047.0

  997.3

  905.8

  881.1

  829.4

  803.0

  784.2

  763.2

  721.3

  206W
  (2) Cable survivability testing: to determine the susceptibility and depth variability of underwater cables to the bite threat from reef fish.

  UK approval was sought for both.

HEALTH

  Phentermine
  Dr. Brand
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many prescriptions for phentermine (Ionamin) there were in the NHS and the private sector in the last three years; and if he will make a statement on the licensing history of this drug. [138773]

  Ms Stuart
  The number of National Health Service prescription items for phentermine dispensed in the community in England from 1997 to 1999 is shown in the table. Information on prescriptions dispensed in NHS hospitals or the private sector is not available.

  Number of prescription items for phentermine, dispensed in the community 1997 to 1999

  England

  Thousand

  Year

  Number of Year prescription items

  1997

  23.4

  1998

  20.5

  1999

  19.8

  Note:

  1. The data are from the Prescription Cost Analysis (PCA) systems and are based on a full analysis of all prescriptions dispensed in the community ie by the community pharmacists and appliance contractors, dispensing doctors, and prescriptions submitted by prescribing doctors for items personally administered in England. Total prescriptions include not only prescriptions originating from general practices in England but also from nurses, hospital doctors and dentists provided they were dispensed in the community. Also included are prescriptions written in Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man but dispensed in England. The data do not cover drugs dispensed in hospitals or private prescriptions.

  The marketing authorisation for phentermine was withdrawn by the European Commission on 9 April. It was subsequently reinstated on 7 August following a legal challenge to the European Court.

  Dentists
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many dentures were provided and fitted by NHS dentists in each year since 1990. [138816]

  Mr. Hutton
  The table shows the number of treatment items for dentures in the General Dental Service in England from 1990–91 to 1999–2000.

  Better oral health in the population has contributed to a decline in the number of people requiring dentures.
  207W

  General Dental Service: number of denture treatment items, 1990–91 to 1999–2000

  England

  Thousand

  Item

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  Metal Based

  Full denture upper

  17.1

  18.3

  16.5

  14.2

  13.4

  12.1

  11.0

  10.5

  10.2

  9.2

  Full denture lower

  1.4

  1.8

  1.6

  1.7

  2.5

  2.6

  2.9

  2.1

  1.0

  1.0

  Plate design partial denture

  56.3

  61.8

  51.5

  43.2

  40.5

  38.6

  33.3

  31.0

  31.1

  29.3

  Skeleton design partial denture1

  67.7

  66.3

  58.2

  47.1

  46.7

  43.4

  36.4

  32.9

  32.7

  33.3

  Skeleton design partial denture2

  53.4

  51.7

  48.7

  43.3

  43.2

  40.2

  35.4

  31.1

  31.5

  29.8

  Dentures in any other metal

  2.0

  1.6

  1.2

  1.2

  0.7

  0.4

  0.2

  0.2

  0.2

  0.0

  Total for metal based

  197.8

  201.6

  177.7

  150.7

  147.0

  137.3

  119.2

  107.9

  106.7

  102.6

  Total denture treatment items

  1,184.5

  1,248.5

  1,175.1

  1,056.5

  1,028.1

  966.7

  922.1

  892.1

  869.9

  823.9

  1 Single bar

  2 Multiple bars

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the number of dentists from(a) Italy and (b) Greece who are practising in the United Kingdom; what mandatory vocational training is given to dental graduates in these countries before being allowed to practise; and if he will make a statement. [138815]

  Mr. Hutton
  I am advised that at 1 January 2000 the General Dental Council had accepted onto their register 84 dentists with a primary qualification from Greece and 27 with a primary qualification from Italy. European Community Directive 78–686 makes provision for free movement of European Economic Authority dentists with EEA qualifications and mutual recognition of their qualifications. Although the Directive lays down minimum standards of training, the amount of time devoted to vocational training is a matter for individual member states to determine.

  Parkinson's Disease
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health under what circumstances sufferers of Parkinson's disease are exempted from paying prescription charges; and what plans he has to change these criteria. [139281]

  Ms Stuart
  People suffering from Parkinson's disease are entitled to free prescriptions if they are aged 60 or over, are suffering from an exempting medical condition (Parkinson's disease itself is not an exempting condition) or they (or their partner) are receiving income support, income based jobseeker's allowance or tax credits (with

  Finished Consultant Episodes (FCEs)1 by all Operation Count of Episodes Walsgrave Hospitals NHS Trust 1996–97 to 1998–99

  OPCS4R Codes used

  Operation

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  C71-C72, C74-C75

  Cataract removal

  1,951

  1,569

  1,995

  W40-W42

  Knee joint replacement

  123

  113

  213

  W37-W39, W46-W48

  Hip joint replacements

  261

  251

  414

  T19-T21

  Hernia

  520

  549

  692

  1 An FCE is defined as a period of patient care under one consultant in one health care provided.

  Note:

  1. The figures do not represent the number of patients, as one person may have several episodes within a year.

  2. These figures represent a count of all FCEs where the procedure was mentioned in any of the four operation fields in the HES data set.

  3. The data in the table have not been adjusted for shortfalls.

  Source:

  Hospital Episodes Statistics (HES) Department of Health
  208W
  their maximum credit reduced by £70 or less per week). They may also claim for help under the NHS Low Income Scheme. We have no plans to review these arrangements.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health for what reason he has not answered the question tabled for answer on 13 November, by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton, with regard to correspondence concerning Mr. D. Garnett. [139679]

  Ms Stuart
  A reply was sent to my right hon. Friend's letter on 20 November.

  Operations (Walsgrave Hospital)
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) cataract, (b) knee joint replacement, (c) hip joint replacement and (d) hernia operations were performed at Walsgrave Hospital in each of the last three years. [139045]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 21 November 2000]: The figures for Walsgrave Hospital, part of the University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire NHS Trust, formerly called the Walsgrave Hospitals NHS Trust, would exclude cataracts and knee and hip joint replacements, as Orthopaedics and Ophthalmology are based at the Coventry and Warwickshire Hospital site.

  The table shows all-operation count of episodes on the number of cataract removal, knee joint replacement, hip joint replacement and hernia carried out at the former Walsgrave Hospitals NHS Trust from 1996–97 to 1998–99.

  Free Nursing Care
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will set out(a) the assumptions his Department used and (b) the definition of nursing care used in providing an estimate of the cost of his proposal that nursing care should be free. [139042]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 20 November 2000]: These figures were based on the estimated costs of nursing care incurred by individuals in nursing homes who are not currently supported by local authorities or the National Health Service. They also include costs associated with assessing people's nursing care needs under the new arrangements. This calculation broadly reflected the difference in the average costs of residential and nursing care, rather than a particular definition of nursing care.

  Hospices
  Mr. Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the total budget spent on hospices in(a) England and (b) Wales from 1979 to 1997; and what are the projected budgets for England for the next three years. [139603]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 21 November 2000]: Specialist palliative care is provided by voluntary sector providers and by the National Health Service. Information on the total budget spend on hospices in past years is not available.

  The National Council for Hospices and Specialist Palliative Care has estimated that in 1999–2000 total spend on hospice provision for adults (both NHS and voluntary hospices) was £249 million. Of this, £99 million was provided by the NHS and £150 million by the voluntary sector. In addition, the NHS spend on specialist palliative care services was a further £31 million.

  The NHS Cancer Plan published on 27 September, copies of which have been placed in the Library, recognises the importance of palliative care for all patients that need it. By 2004 the NHS will invest an extra £50 million to end inequalities in access to specialist palliative care and to enable the NHS to make a realistic contribution to the cost hospices incur in providing agreed levels of service. This will mean for the first time ever, NHS investment in specialist palliative care services will match that of the voluntary sector.

  Matters relating to Wales are for the devolved administration to answer.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Sir Walter Raleigh Statue
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans he has to move the statue of Sir Walter Raleigh from its position in Whitehall; and if he will make a statement. [139310]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  [holding answer 20 November 2000]: I announced on 15 November that the statue of Sir Walter Raleigh, which is currently sited in Whitehall, should be moved to a new home at the Royal Naval
  210W
  College, Greenwich. I have asked English Heritage, who are the statue's guardians, to begin any necessary preparations.

  Tourist Attractions
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what official procedures are in place to ensure that lottery-funded and other tourist attractions across the United Kingdom are adequately served by public transport systems. [139015]

  Janet Anderson
  Government policy on planning issues is contained in Planning Policy Guidance (PPG) published by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. PPG 13 covers transport and states that in promoting policies for tourism and recreation, local authorities should ensure that major new attractions are readily accessible by a range of means of transport. In addition, attractions applying for lottery funding are required to demonstrate that they have a viable business plan. The availability of public transport is an important element for attractions where viability depends on visitor numbers.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Palace of Westminster (Guided Tours)
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Chairman of the Administration Committee what was the total(a) cost incurred and (b) revenue gained as a result of the arrangements for guided tours of the Palace of Westminster during the summer recess 2000. [139927]

  Mrs. Roe
  My Committee's Report, containing this information, will be put before the House shortly.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  EU Judicial Systems
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on his policy towards pooling of prosecution under the "Ne bis in idem" principle, where the defendant has committed the same crime in several EU countries, as discussed in Com (2000) 495. [134798]

  Mrs. Roche
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 1 November 2000,Official Report, column 519W.

  European Judicial Systems
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what his policy is on Eurojust; and if he will make a statement. [139740]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The decision to establish Eurojust was taken at the special European Council meeting held at Tampere, Finland in October 1999. The European Council agreed that Eurojust would have the task of facilitating the proper co-ordination of national prosecuting authorities and of supporting criminal investigations in organised crime cases, notably based on Europol's analysis, as

  211W
  well as of co-operating closely with the European Judicial Network, in particular in order to simplify the execution of letters rogatory.

  The Justice and Home Affairs Council was requested to adopt the necessary legal instrument by the end of 2001.

  The Government fully support the decision to establish Eurojust and are actively participating in the current work to negotiate the necessary legal instrument. In discharging the remit from Tampere, the Government believe that Eurojust should co-ordinate and facilitate cross-border investigations, but without directing the national authorities involved.

  In addition to dealing with other types of serious crime, the Government consider that Eurojust should take an active part in the investigation and prosecution of cases of fraud against the finances of the European Union. Eurojust will also need to establish close links with Europol to enable the two organisations to co-operate fully in the European Union's fight against organised crime.

  The Government have fully supported the decision to establish a Provisional Judicial Co-operation Unit in Brussels in the interim period before Eurojust is established. A similar method was used successfully when Europol was established, and experience gained from the operation of the Provisional Unit will feed into the negotiations on Eurojust itself.

  Lord Birt
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he last met Lord Birt in his position as an adviser to the Government on crime matters; what issues were discussed; and if he will make a statement. [136574]

  Mr. Straw
  [holding answer 6 November 2000]: I would refer the right hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 17 November 2000, Official Report, column 801W.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many meetings he has had with Lord Birt regarding crime since Lord Birt's appointment as an adviser to the Government on crime; and what reports on crime he has been presented with by Lord Birt. [137321]

  Mr. Straw
  [holding answer 8 November 2000]:
  I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 17 November 2000, Official Report, column 801W.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Godsiff
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the Immigration and Nationality Directorate will reply to letters sent by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook and Small Heath on 20 July 2000 and 1 September 2000 concerning the case of Abdul Hammed Butt. [139027]

  Mrs. Roche
  The Immigration and Nationality Directorate replied to my hon. Friend on 17 November. I am sorry that a reply was not sent sooner.
  212W
  Mr. Sarwar
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will explain the delays by his Department in dealing with correspondence from Plancey & Company, immigration consultants in Glasgow. [138997]

  Mrs. Roche
  We are not aware of any particular delays in dealing with correspondence from Plancey & Co. Inquiries from this organisation are not treated differently to those from other organisations representing immigration applicants. General inquiries should be directed to the Immigration and Nationality Enquiry Bureau. Correspondence about individual cases will be linked to the file and every effort is made to respond speedily to inquiries, depending on the nature and complexity of the case. Resources have been committed to speeding up consideration of all types of application and to reducing backlogs, which has reduced the number of inquiries about outstanding applications.

  Movement of Persons (EU)
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list by subject headings those provisions of the European Union treaties concerned with movements of persons between member states, and within it of persons from third countries,(a) those obligations which bind all member states, (b) those additional obligations applicable to members of the Schengen agreement, (c) those optional arrangements provided for in the treaties to which the United Kingdom is a party, (d) those additional arrangements made by the Schengen agreement into which the United Kingdom has entered and (e) those arrangements additional to the above currently under negotiation by the United Kingdom. [139083]

  Mrs. Roche
  Articles 18 and 39–48 of the Treaty establishing the European Community (TEC) concern the free movement of European Union citizens. Article 18 falls under the subject heading 'Citizenship of the Union' (Part Two of the Treaty). Articles 39–48 fall under 'Free Movement of Persons, Services and Capital' (Part Three, Title III). These provisions are binding on all member states.

  Articles 61–64 of the TEC contain provisions regarding the movement of third country nationals. These articles fall under 'Visas, Asylum, Immigration and Other Policies Related to the Free Movement of Persons' (Part Three, Title IV). Any measure adopted under Title IV does not bind the United Kingdom (or Ireland) unless either country chooses to opt in to the measure, pursuant to the `Protocol on the Position of the United Kingdom and Ireland' annexed to the TEC by the Treaty of Amsterdam. Denmark's separate Protocol prevents it from taking part in any measures under Title IV.

  Members of the Schengen agreement have additional obligations under the Schengen acquis. This body of law is extensive, so I refer my hon. Friend to the Council Decision 1999/435/EC where the obligations are listed. The United Kingdom does not participate in the parts of the Schengen acquis which are inconsistent with the Government's policy on frontier controls. Those parts of the Schengen acquis in which we do participate are listed in Council Decision 2000/365/EC.

  The scope of the treaty amendments currently under discussion in the Intergovernmental Conference is set out in the Government's White Paper `IGC: Reform for

  213W
  Enlargement', presented to Parliament in February 2000. The latest position on these negotiations is set out in the French Presidency document of 3 November 2000, 'The Progress Report on the Intergovernmental Conference on Institutional Reform' (CONFER 4790), which is available in the Library.

  Violent and Sexual Offences
  Mr. Sawford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many individuals have been

  Number of persons prosecuted at magistrates' courts and convicted (found guilty) at all courts for violent and sexual offences by Police Force Area, 1998 and 1999

  Violent offences1

  Sexual offences2

  1998

  1999

  1998

  1999

  Police Force Area

  Prosecutions

  Convictions

  Prosecutions

  Convictions

  Prosecutions

  Convictions

  Prosecutions

  Convictions

  Avon and Somerset

  2,648

  1,327

  2,854

  1,522

  279

  100

  260

  101

  Bedfordshire

  1,103

  546

  1,084

  532

  69

  25

  102

  32

  Cambridgeshire

  1,389

  711

  1,372

  777

  84

  50

  117

  53

  Cheshire

  2,203

  1,271

  2,297

  1,257

  168

  141

  138

  87

  City of London

  114

  36

  148

  53

  6

  1

  11

  5

  Cleveland

  1,270

  645

  1,187

  594

  56

  48

  74

  48

  Cumbria

  1,404

  882

  1,435

  857

  48

  36

  68

  35

  Derbyshire

  2,373

  1,187

  2,324

  1,170

  172

  84

  176

  73

  Devon and Cornwall

  2,888

  1,499

  2,773

  1,500

  146

  134

  150

  118

  Dorset

  932

  549

  970

  584

  122

  51

  106

  57

  Durham

  1,304

  754

  1,461

  874

  74

  45

  117

  43

  Essex

  2,738

  1,385

  2,810

  1,410

  220

  101

  228

  81

  Gloucestershire

  1,021

  505

  1,170

  569

  49

  34

  53

  39

  Greater Manchester

  7,033

  3,653

  7,416

  3,638

  468

  302

  445

  246

  Hampshire

  4,015

  2,325

  4,464

  2,537

  263

  171

  334

  179

  Hertfordshire

  1,302

  709

  1,506

  786

  103

  51

  114

  49

  Humberside

  1,813

  1,160

  1,742

  1,073

  86

  96

  82

  61

  Kent

  3,005

  1,779

  3,050

  1,642

  184

  129

  168

  105

  Lancashire

  3,700

  2,034

  3,427

  1,877

  226

  144

  254

  157

  Leicestershire

  2,473

  1,248

  2,250

  1,249

  148

  77

  153

  83

  Lincolnshire

  1,455

  828

  1,543

  834

  104

  38

  102

  49

  Merseyside

  3,272

  1,754

  3,120

  1,624

  191

  136

  139

  99

  Metropolitan Police

  15,437

  8,257

  16,286

  7,796

  1,034

  576

  1,117

  532

  Norfolk

  1,303

  929

  1,309

  956

  121

  51

  85

  50

  North Yorkshire

  1,465

  863

  1,535

  902

  64

  60

  66

  43

  Northamptonshire

  1,468

  728

  1,321

  784

  79

  52

  39

  37

  Northumbria

  4,148

  2,206

  4,362

  2,293

  374

  173

  345

  167

  Nottinghamshire

  3,529

  1,700

  3,633

  1,722

  236

  143

  194

  144

  South Yorkshire

  2,382

  1,455

  2,538

  1,426

  151

  112

  142

  110

  Staffordshire

  2,474

  1,268

  2,536

  1,274

  159

  80

  137

  86

  Suffolk

  1,151

  643

  1,369

  769

  71

  49

  77

  64

  Surrey

  896

  499

  951

  501

  75

  48

  58

  36

  Sussex

  2,078

  1,139

  2,108

  1,142

  186

  101

  166

  70

  Thames Valley

  2,910

  1,505

  2,945

  1,504

  178

  106

  179

  105

  Warwickshire

  678

  450

  612

  386

  37

  21

  44

  26

  West Mercia

  1,991

  1,110

  2,050

  1,129

  145

  101

  119

  95

  West Midlands

  7,341

  3,395

  8,900

  3,809

  488

  281

  562

  315

  West Yorkshire

  5,853

  2,782

  6,986

  3,260

  412

  259

  437

  256

  Wiltshire

  1,246

  753

  1,166

  784

  93

  45

  63

  45

  Dyfed Powys

  1,577

  749

  1,721

  805

  100

  55

  113

  58

  Gwent

  1,868

  918

  1,853

  948

  98

  53

  105

  68

  North Wales

  1,702

  1,073

  1,710

  991

  132

  66

  96

  50

  South Wales

  4,110

  1,951

  4,132

  1,966

  264

  141

  282

  147

  England and Wales

  115,062

  61,160

  120,426

  62,106

  7,763

  4,567

  7,817

  4,304

  1 'Violent offences' includes the indicatable 'violence against the person' offence group plus the summary offence of 'common assault'.

  2 'Sexual offences' includes the indictable 'sexual offences' group.

  Mr. Sawford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the(a) total and (b) average sum of money paid out in criminal injuries compensation in each police authority area as a result of sexual and physical abuse cases in the last two years. [139140]
  214W
  (a) charged with, (b) convicted of and (c) found guilty of (i) physical and (ii) sexual abuse in each police authority area in the last two years. [139139]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Information on the number of persons charged is not collected centrally.

  Available information, taken from the Home Office Court Proceedings database, showing the number of persons prosecuted at magistrates' courts and convicted (found guilty) at all courts for violent and sexual offences is given in the table.

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority has provided the data in the following tables.
  215W

  Cases involving physical and sexual abuse 1 April 1998 to 31 March 1999

  Police

  Number of cases

  Total paid

  Average paid

  Avon and Somerset Constabulary

  106

  5,136,750.00

  48,450.99

  Bedfordshire Police

  35

  1,338,500.00

  38,240.29

  British Transport Police

  14

  209,800.00

  14,980.57

  Cambridgeshire Constabulary

  65

  2,359,250.00

  36,290.62

  Central Scotland Police

  24

  971,000.00

  40,450.83

  Cheshire Constabulary

  99

  4,071,850.00

  41,120.98

  Cleveland Constabulary

  74

  3,146,750.00

  42,520.36

  Cumbria Constabulary

  34

  940,000.00

  27,640.71

  Derbyshire Constabulary

  85

  3,294,000.00

  38,750.29

  Devon and Cornwall Constabulary

  85

  3,806,750.00

  44,780.53

  Dorset Police

  44

  1,567,000.00

  35,610.36

  Dumfries and Galloway Constabulary

  19

  610,000.00

  32,100.53

  Durham Constabulary

  74

  3,571,000.00

  48,250.68

  Dyfed Powys Police

  29

  1,112,500.00

  38,360.21

  Essex Police

  116

  4,916,340.00

  42,380.22

  Fife Constabulary

  51

  2,774,250.00

  54,390.71

  Gloucestershire Constabulary

  59

  2,524,290.00

  42,780.46

  Grampian Police

  42

  1,680,250.00

  40,000.60

  Greater Manchester Police

  274

  11,062,850.00

  40,370.54

  Gwent Constabulary

  74

  2,913,000.00

  39,360.49

  Hampshire Constabulary

  178

  8,268,750.00

  48,470.61

  Hertfordshire Constabulary

  46

  2,024,250.00

  44,000.54

  Humberside Police

  79

  3,127,250.00

  39,580.54

  Kent County Constabulary

  159

  8,266,000.00

  51,980.74

  Lancashire Constabulary

  139

  5,100,900.00

  36,690.71

  Leicestershire Constabulary

  64

  3,624,750.00

  56,630.67

  Lincolnshire Police

  54

  2,468,750.00

  45,710.76

  Lothian and Borders Police

  118

  5,349,250.00

  45,330.26

  Merseyside Police

  179

  6,993,250.00

  39,060.84

  Metropolitan Police

  525

  25,553,160.00

  48,670.27

  Norfolk Constabulary

  72

  2,424,500.00

  33,670.36

  North Wales Police

  108

  4,312,500.00

  39,930.06

  North Yorkshire Police

  66

  2,561,250.00

  38,800.68

  Northamptonshire Police

  59

  2,544,000.00

  43,110.86

  Northern Constabulary

  23

  910,000.00

  39,560.52

  Northumbria Police

  177

  7,663,320.50

  43,290.56

  Nottinghamshire Constabulary

  126

  5,714,000.00

  45,340.92

  Port of Liverpool Police

  2

  20,000.00

  10,000.00

  RAF Military Police

  1

  20,000.00

  20,000.00

  South Wales Police

  152

  7,145,650.00

  47,010.09

  South Yorkshire Police

  128

  5,522,500.00

  43,140.45

  Staffordshire Police

  68

  2,829,520.50

  41,610.07

  Strathclyde Police

  214

  8,043,350.00

  37,580.57

  Suffolk Constabulary

  63

  2,726,500.00

  43,270.78

  Surrey Constabulary

  46

  2,136,250.00

  46,440.02

  Sussex Police

  92

  4,836,180.50

  52,560.72

  Tayside Police

  49

  1,921,500.00

  39,210.43

  Thames Valley Police

  108

  5,775,000.00

  53,470.22

  Warwickshire Constabulary

  32

  1,822,500.00

  56,950.31

  West Mercia Constabulary

  102

  5,019,250.00

  49,200.83

  West Midlands Police

  180

  8,489,250.00

  47,160.25

  West Yorkshire Police

  251

  10,480,250.00

  41,750.40

  Wiltshire Constabulary

  29

  1,160,000.00

  40,000.00

  Total

  5,092

  223,219,720.50

  43,830.73

  Cases involving physical and sexual abuse 1 April 1999 to 31 March 2000

  Police

  Number of cases

  Total paid

  Average paid

  Avon and Somerset Constabulary

  88

  4,159,000.00

  47,260.14

  Bedfordshire Police

  31

  1,941,000.00

  62,610.29

  British Transport Police

  14

  365,000.00

  26,070.14

  Cambridgeshire Constabulary

  62

  2,162,000.00

  34,870.10

  Central Scotland Police

  21

  902,500.00

  42,970.62

  Cheshire Constabulary

  109

  4,796,710.50

  44,000.66

  City of London Police

  3

  30,000.00

  10,000.00

  Cleveland Constabulary

  65

  2,413,580.00

  37,130.20

  Cumbria Constabulary

  40

  1,833,350.00

  45,830.38

  Derbyshire Constabulary

  113

  4,147,070.50

  36,690.98

  Devon and Cornwall Constabulary

  152

  7,484,750.00

  49,240.18

  Dorset Police

  56

  2,898,120.50

  51,750.22

  216W 217W

  Cases involving physical and sexual abuse 1 April 1999 to 31 March 2000

  Police

  Number of cases

  Total paid

  Average paid

  Dumfries and Galloway Constabulary

  14

  785,000.00

  56,070.14

  Durham Constabulary

  44

  1,971,250.00

  44,800.11

  Dyfed Powys Police

  51

  2,003,250.00

  39,270.94

  Essex Police

  93

  4,998,140.00

  53,740.34

  Fife Constabulary

  38

  1,530,000.00

  40,260.32

  Gloucestershire Constabulary

  32

  1,588,000.00

  49,620.50

  Grampian Police

  35

  2,180,000.00

  62,280.57

  Greater Manchester Police

  271

  11,727,400.50

  43,270.46

  Gwent Constabulary

  65

  3,452,750.00

  53,110.92

  Hampshire Constabulary

  171

  9,354,000.00

  54,700.18

  Hertfordshire Constabulary

  56

  2,466.000.00

  44,030.57

  Humberside Police

  78

  3,299,000.00

  42,290.49

  Kent County Constabulary

  154

  8,215,800.00

  53,340.94

  Lancashire Constabulary

  162

  7,110,820.50

  43,890.40

  Leicestershire Constabulary

  48

  2,472,750.00

  51,510.56

  Lincolnshire Police

  46

  1,541,250.00

  33,500.54

  Lothian and Borders Police

  102

  4,726,750.00

  46,340.07

  Manchester Dock Police

  1

  75,000.00

  75,000.00

  Mersey Tunnels Law Enforcement

  2

  40,000.00

  20,000.00

  Merseyside Police

  135

  5,653,280.40

  41,870.62

  Metropolitan Police

  446

  23,204,300.00

  52,020.76

  Ministry of Defence Police

  1

  10,000.00

  10,000.00

  Norfolk Constabulary

  63

  2,753,500.00

  43,700.63

  North Wales Police

  75

  3,185,000.00

  42,460.67

  North Yorkshire Police

  60

  2,124,250.00

  35,400.42

  Northamptonshire Police

  37

  1,972,250.00

  53,300.41

  Northern Constabulary

  14

  732,000.00

  52,280.57

  Northumbria Police

  226

  9,546,050.00

  42,230.92

  Nottinghamshire Constabulary

  112

  5,309,620.50

  47,400.74

  Royal Military Police Eastern District

  1

  30,000.00

  30,000.00

  Royal Military Police Southern District

  1

  75,000.00

  75,000.00

  Royal Ulster Constabulary

  2

  175,000.00

  87,500.00

  South Wales Police

  127

  6,343,500.00

  49,940.88

  South Yorkshire Police

  118

  5,462,250.00

  46,290.03

  Staffordshire Police

  58

  2,776,250.00

  47,860.64

  Strathclyde Police

  225

  8,888,750.00

  39,500.56

  Suffolk Constabulary

  65

  3,311,250.00

  50,940.23

  Surrey Constabulary

  58

  2,279,000.00

  39,290.31

  Sussex Police

  72

  3,594,500.00

  49,920.36

  Tayside Police

  57

  2,584,500.00

  45,340.21

  Thames Valley Police

  120

  6,402,250.00

  53,350.21

  The Commissioner of Police

  2

  20,000.00

  10,000.00

  Warwickshire Constabulary

  28

  1,091,850.00

  38,990.46

  West Mercia Constabulary

  72

  2,395,250.00

  33,260.74

  West Midlands Police

  210

  8,954,250.00

  42,630.93

  West Yorkshire Police

  228

  10,665,750.00

  46,770.96

  Wiltshire Constabulary

  46

  2,374,000.00

  51,600.87

  Total

  4,876

  224,583,870.40

  46,050.90

  Cases involving physical and sexual abuse 1 April 1998 to 31 March 2000

  Police

  Number of cases

  Total paid

  Average paid

  Avon and Somerset Constabulary

  194

  9,295,750.00

  47,910.62

  Bedfordshire Police

  66

  3,279,500.00

  49,680.94

  British Transport Police

  28

  574,800.00

  20,520.86

  Cambridgeshire Constabulary

  127

  4,521,250.00

  35,600.04

  Central Scotland Police

  45

  1,873,500.00

  41,630.33

  Cheshire Constabulary

  208

  8,868,560.50

  42,630.73

  City of London Police

  3

  30,000.00

  10,000.00

  Cleveland Constabulary

  139

  5,560,330.00

  40,000.24

  Cumbria Constabulary

  74

  2,773,350.00

  37,470.77

  Derbyshire Constabulary

  198

  7,441,070.50

  37,580.12

  Devon and Cornwall Constabulary

  237

  11,291,500.00

  47,640.35

  Dorset Police

  100

  4,465,120.50

  44,650.13

  Dumfries and Galloway Constabulary

  33

  1,395,000.00

  42,270.27

  Durham Constabulary

  118

  5,542,250.00

  46,960.82

  Dyfed Powys Police

  80

  3,115,750.00

  38,940.69

  Essex Police

  209

  9,914,480.00

  47,430.77

  Fife Constabulary

  89

  4,304,250.00

  48,360.24

  218W 219W

  Cases involving physical and sexual abuse 1 April 1998 to 31 March 2000

  Police

  Number of cases

  Total paid

  Average paid

  Gloucestershire Constabulary

  91

  4,112,290.00

  45,190.00

  Grampian Police

  77

  3,860,250.00

  50,130.31

  Greater Manchester Police

  545

  22,790,250.50

  41,810.70

  Gwent Constabulary

  139

  6,365,750.00

  45,790.68

  Hampshire Constabulary

  349

  17,982,750.00

  51,520.65

  Hertfordshire Constabulary

  102

  4,490,250.00

  44,020.21

  Humberside Police

  157

  6,426,250.00

  40,930.15

  Kent County Constabulary

  313

  16,481,800.00

  52,650.75

  Lancashire Constabulary

  301

  12,211,720.50

  40,570.05

  Leicestershire Constabulary

  112

  6,097,500.00

  54,440.20

  Lincolnshire Police

  100

  4,010,000.00

  40,100.00

  Lothian and Borders Police

  220

  10,076,000.00

  45,800.00

  Manchester Dock Police

  1

  75,000.00

  75,000.00

  Mersey Tunnels Law Enforcement

  2

  40,000.00

  20,000.00

  Merseyside Police

  314

  12,646,530.40

  40,270.56

  Metropolitan Police

  971

  48,757,460.00

  50,210.37

  Ministry of Defence Police

  1

  10,000.00

  10,000.00

  Norfolk Constabulary

  135

  5,178,000.00

  38,350.56

  North Wales Police

  183

  7,497,500.00

  40,960.99

  North Yorkshire Police

  126

  4,685,500.00

  37,180.65

  Northamptonshire Police

  96

  4,516,250.00

  47,040.43

  Northern Constabulary

  37

  1,642,000.00

  44,370.84

  Northumbria Police

  403

  17,209,370.50

  42,700.32

  Nottinghamshire Constabulary

  238

  11,023,620.50

  46,310.78

  Port of Liverpool Police

  2

  20,000.00

  10,000.00

  RAF Military Police

  1

  20,000.00

  20,000.00

  Royal Military Police Eastern District

  1

  30,000.00

  30,000.00

  Royal Military Police Southern District

  1

  75,000.00

  75,000.00

  Royal Ulster Constabulary

  2

  175,000.00

  87,500.00

  South Wales Police

  279

  13,489,150.00

  48,340.82

  South Yorkshire Police

  246

  10,984,750.00

  44,650.35

  Staffordshire Police

  126

  5,605,770.50

  44,490.03

  Strathclyde Police

  439

  16,932,100.00

  38,560.97

  Suffolk Constabulary

  128

  6,037,750.00

  47,160.99

  Surrey Constabulary

  104

  4,415,250.00

  42,450.43

  Sussex Police

  164

  8,430,680.50

  51,400.66

  Tayside Police

  106

  4,506,000.00

  42,500.94

  Thames Valley Police

  228

  12,177,250.00

  53,400.90

  The Commissioner of Police

  2

  20,000.00

  10,000.00

  Warwickshire Constabulary

  60

  2,914,350.00

  48,570.25

  West Mercia Constabulary

  174

  7,414,500.00

  42,610.21

  West Midlands Police

  390

  17,443,500.00

  44,720.69

  West Yorkshire Police

  479

  21,146,000.00

  44,140.61

  Wiltshire Constabulary

  75

  3,534,000.00

  47,120.00

  Total

  9,968

  447,803,590.90

  44,920.41

  DNA Samples
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will bring formal legislation to allow DNA samples collected during the course of a police investigation to be retained, subject to the consent of the person giving the sample.[139099]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The consultation paper "Proposals for Revising Legislative Measures on Fingerprints, Footprints and DNA Samples", published on 30 July 1999, proposed allowing retention of DNA samples given voluntarily by members of the public during the course of a police investigation, subject to the volunteers' consent. We intend to introduce legislation on the use of DNA profiling in criminal investigations at the earliest opportunity.

  Police Numbers (Gwent)
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many additional police officers 220W
  will be employed by Gwent Police following the Comprehensive Spending Review. [139262]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  As a result of the 2000 Spending Review (SR2000) spending on the police will rise from £7.7 billion this year to £8.5 billion in 2001–02; to £9.0 billion in 2002–03 and to £9.3 billion in 2003–04. This is a very significant increase in resources, with funding rising by nearly £1.6 billion in 2003–04 over provision for this year.

  The Home Secretary's powers to set establishment levels for each force were removed by the previous Government in 1994, under the Police and Magistrates' Courts Act 1994. It is for the Chief Officer to determine staffing requirements within the overall resources available. That said, we are providing further new money in SR2000 to expand the Crime Fighting Fund (CFF). As a result forces will be able to recruit 9,000 police officers over and above the number they had previously planned to recruit in the three years 2000–01 to 2002–03 (rather than the 5,000 announced in September 1999).
  221W
  In the case of Gwent, the force's CFF allocation has increased from 43 to 81 recruits. Their allocation is spread over three years. Allocations for years two and three are provisional. They depend on the force delivering target recruitment and improved performance.

  European Public Prosecutor
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will veto the European Commission's IGC proposal 280a to appoint a European Public Prosecutor.[134594]

  Mrs. Roche
  [holding answer 26 October 2000]: In the Intergovernmental Conference negotiations, the Commission is entitled to make proposals. But decisions are a matter for the member states. In the IGC preparatory group, the great majority of member states, including the United Kingdom, have not been minded even to consider the Commission's proposal to appoint a European Public Prosecutor.

  Asylum Seekers (Sir Lanka)
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications for asylum have been received from Sri Lanka in each of the last 10 years; how many have been refused; how many applicants have returned to Sri Lanka during that time; and if he will make a statement. [139433]

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

  I regret that the requested information on the number of applicants who have returned to Sri Lanka is not available.

  All applications from Sri Lankan nationals are considered on their individual merits in accordance with the United Kingdom's obligations under the 1951 convention.

  Sri Lankan asylum applications 1991 to September 2000

  Applications received1,2

  Refusals of asylum and exceptional leave4,5

  1991

  3,765

  620

  1992

  2,085

  215

  1993

  1,965

  260

  1994

  2,350

  955

  1995

  2,070

  1,225

  1996

  1,340

  2,115

  1997

  1,830

  1,710

  1998

  3,505

  1,950

  19997

  35,130

  1,980

  2000 (to September)7

  34,250

  3,095

  1 Figures do not include overseas applications.

  2 Figures rounded to the nearest five.

  3 Application figures may exclude some cases lodged at Local Enforcement Offices.

  4 Information is of initial decisions excluding the outcome of appeals or the other subsequent decisions.

  5 Includes refusals on the grounds that the applicant had arrived from a safe third country, non-compliance refusals, for failure to provide evidence to support the asylum claim within a reasonable period, and refusals under the backlog clearance exercise.

  6 Decision figures for 1991 may understate.

  7 Provisional figures.

  Neighbourhood Watch Schemes
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many Neighbourhood Watch schemes there are in England and Wales; and what estimate he has made of how many people belong to them. [139484]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  There are now over 160,000 Neighbourhood Watch schemes in England and Wales covering more than six million households, or roughly one in 10 of the population.

  Asylum
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the number of asylum applications that will be made in(a) 2001 and (b) each of the following four years. [139751]

  Mrs. Roche
  The latest forecasts, produced in May, estimated 64,000 asylum applications in 2000–01 and 61,600 in 2001–02. Figures for subsequent years are not available.

  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much has been(a) spent by, (b) claimed by and (c) reimbursed to each local authority in the United Kingdom (i) in the first six months of 2000–01 and (ii) in total, in respect of asylum support; and if he will make a statement.[139749]

  Mrs. Roche
  The amounts shown in the table have been spent and claimed by local authorities in England and Wales in the first six months of 2000–01.

  These amounts are based on unaudited grant claims received for the period 1 April 2000 to 29 September 2000. A number of grant claims have yet to be received. Claims received so far are subject to pre-payment checks and will be paid shortly. Discussions are continuing with representatives of local authorities about arrangements for payments for the remainder of the financial year.

  £

  Local authority

  Amount spent

  Amount claimed

  Barking and Dagenham

  6,058,898

  6,058,898

  Barnet

  3,514,616

  3,514,616

  Barnsley

  301,606

  300,480

  Bath and North East Somerset

  15,425

  15,425

  Bedfordshire

  962,648

  962,648

  Bexley

  787,330

  787,330

  Birmingham

  2,568,138

  2,568,138

  Blackpool

  83,081

  83,081

  Bolton Metro

  258,929

  258,929

  Bournemouth

  489,910

  489,910

  Bradford

  224,081

  224,081

  Brent

  5,395,780

  5,395,780

  Brighton and Hove

  906,905

  795,440

  Bristol City

  904,100

  904,100

  Bromley

  1,530,330

  1,503,765

  Buckinghamshire

  284,524

  200,620

  Bury

  158,130

  158,130

  Caerphilly County

  15,492

  15,492

  Calderdale

  84,648

  84,554

  Cambridgeshire

  762,903

  762,903

  Camden

  4,419,747

  4,419,747

  Cardiff

  380,000

  380,000

  Ceredigion CC

  183

  183

  Cheshire

  92,921

  92,921

  City of Newcastle

  1,112,457

  1,112,457

  223W

  £

  Local authority

  Amount spent

  Amount claimed

  Conwy CBC

  1,875

  1,875

  Cornwall

  7,748

  6,915

  Corporation of London

  936,198

  710,740

  Coventry

  468,511

  405,560

  Croydon

  1,402,418

  1,402,418

  Cumbria

  5,287

  5,287

  Darlington

  2,849

  2,849

  Denbighshire County

  2,570

  2,570

  Derby

  662,750

  662,750

  Derbyshire

  29,376

  28,280

  Devon

  144,352

  139,700

  Dorset

  147,628

  143,978

  Dudley

  157,996

  155,560

  Ealing

  3,089,059

  3,089,059

  East Riding of Yorkshire

  26,350

  26,350

  East Sussex

  597,217

  596,755

  Enfield

  5,976,634

  5,976,634

  Flintshire

  1,778

  1,778

  Gateshead

  66,481

  66,481

  Gloucestershire

  445,414

  445,414

  Greenwich

  3,104,055

  3,104,055

  Hackney

  5,698,162

  5,698,162

  Halton

  4,140

  4,140

  Hampshire

  256,120

  256,120

  Haringey

  13,461,140

  13,461,140

  Havering

  1,589,915

  1,589,915

  Herefordshire

  18,869

  18,869

  Hertfordshire

  2,202,421

  2,190,960

  Hillingdon

  5,017,268

  4,871,240

  Hounslow

  3,025,472

  2,497,020

  Isle of Wight

  5,481

  5,481

  Islington

  13,004,400

  13,004,400

  Kensington and Chelsea

  5,681,868

  5,621,054

  Kent

  19,803,100

  19,803,100

  Kingston Upon Hull

  475,865

  405,440

  Kingston Upon Thames

  783,559

  773,134

  Kirklees

  458,337

  311,114

  Knowsley

  162,994

  146,180

  Lambeth

  6,447.627

  6,447,627

  Lancashire

  51,733

  51,733

  Leeds

  468,878

  453,022

  Leicester

  862,117

  862,117

  Leicestershire

  312,705

  312,705

  Lewisham

  5,784,718

  5,784,718

  Lincolnshire

  363,904

  363,904

  Liverpool

  1,046,589

  985,937

  Luton

  2,120,205

  2,120,205

  Manchester

  3,118,797

  3,118,797

  Medway

  140,369

  140,369

  Merthyr Tydfil County

  1,889

  1,889

  Merton

  2,285,764

  2,285,764

  Middlesbrough

  216,865

  216,865

  Milton Keynes

  1,008,558

  1,008,558

  Newham

  10,947,468

  10,947,468

  Newport County (South Wales)

  85,914

  69,563

  Norfolk

  500,182

  500,182

  North East Lincolnshire

  315,112

  285,477

  North Lincolnshire

  20,552

  20,552

  North Somerset

  67,464

  66,660

  North Tyneside

  145,358

  136,271

  North Yorkshire

  27,507

  27,507

  Northamptonshire

  5,639,778

  5,639,778

  Northumberland

  2,708

  2,708

  Nottingham

  423,841

  423,841

  Nottinghamshire

  186,408

  155,980

  Oldham

  127,233

  105,766

  Oxfordshire

  4,548,007

  4,229,760

  Pembrokeshire

  21,027

  21,027

  Peterborough

  289,612

  289,612

  Plymouth

  108,308

  108,308

  Poole

  45,154

  27,760

  224W

  £

  Local authority

  Amount spent

  Amount claimed

  Portsmouth

  977,600

  977,600

  Reading

  1,613,059

  1,613,059

  Redbridge

  5,516,083

  5,516,083

  Redcar and Cleveland

  194,816

  180,537

  Rhondda Cynon Taff County

  15,676

  15,676

  Richmond Upon Thames

  4,866,815

  4,357,831

  Rochdale

  193,634

  192,400

  Rotherham

  305,766

  280,837

  Rutland

  23,673

  23,673

  Salford

  337,357

  337,357

  Sandwell

  1,090,253

  1,022,220

  Sheffield

  1,765,280

  1,765,280

  Slough

  6,179,132

  4,909,540

  Solihull

  95,449

  88,920

  Somerset

  56,172

  55,320

  South Gloucestershire

  115,352

  96,880

  South Tyneside

  59,343

  59,343

  Southampton

  1,549,144

  1,549,144

  Southend on Sea

  1,077,580

  1,077,580

  Southwark

  9,142,860

  9,142,860

  St. Helens

  6,560

  6,560

  Staffordshire

  439,218

  420,238

  Stockport

  226,143

  186,180

  Stockton on Tees

  14,119

  14,119

  Stoke on Trent

  228,380

  228,280

  Suffolk

  393,228

  393,228

  Sunderland

  164,672

  160,540

  Surrey

  1,631,944

  1,329,680

  Sutton

  1,505,946

  1,445,200

  Swindon

  339,680

  339,680

  Tameside

  119,207

  114,360

  Telford and Wrekin

  61,022

  56,640

  Thurrock

  1,011,984

  1,011,984

  Trafford

  167,191

  136,013

  Vale of Glamorgan

  28,217

  29,080

  Wakefield

  435,443

  425,340

  Walsall

  90,103

  90,103

  Waltham Forest

  4,856,262

  4,856,262

  Wandsworth

  3,272,234

  2,774,440

  Warrington

  23,333

  20,020

  West Berkshire

  35,756

  35,756

  West Sussex

  513,833

  513,833

  Westminster

  7,950,480

  6,375,743

  Wigan

  173,868

  172,460

  Wiltshire

  103,871

  92,495

  Windsor and Maidenhead

  50,678

  38,320

  Workingham

  40,502

  40,502

  Wolverhampton

  177,027

  177,027

  Worcestershire

  239,055

  239,055

  York

  18,596

  18,596

  Cyngor Gwynedd Council

  749

  700

  Total

  227,465.138

  220,938,210

  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prosecutions there have been to date under section 8 of the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996; and if he will make a statement. [139752]

  Mrs. Roche
  There have been seven prosecutions to date, under section 8 of the 1996 Act. We are aware of the problem caused by unscrupulous gangmasters, and by others who commit offences under this section of legislation. There has been a marked increase in the number of prosecutions in comparison with last year, when there was only one, and this demonstrates our commitment to combat illegal working and the exploitation of vulnerable people.
  225W
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of total spending on(a) asylum support and (b) administration associated with asylum applications, in (i) 2000–01 and (ii) each of the next five years.[139750]

  Mrs. Roche
  The available information is shown in the table. Spending plans beyond 2003–04 have not yet been decided.

  £ million

  Year

  Asylum support

  Immigration administration

  2000–01

  604

  594.5

  2001–02

  403

  549.5

  2002–03

  434

  555.9

  2003–04

  491

  553.9

  1Including asylum administration costs

WALES

  Disaster Areas
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to review the definition of a designated disaster area. [139590]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I have been asked to reply.

  There is no formal definition of a "disaster area".

  The common working definition of a disaster is any event (happening with or without warning) causing or threatening death or injury, damage to property or to the environment or disruption to the community, which because of the scale of its effects cannot be dealt with by the emergency services and local authorities as part of their day-to-day activities.

  There are no plans to review this definition.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Terrorist Organisations
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment he has made of links between the 32 County Sovereignty Committee and the Real IRA. [139173]

  Mr. Ingram
  With regard to the relationship between the 32 County Sovereignty Committee and the Real IRA, the Government believe that they are two sides of the same coin. The 32 County Sovereignty Committee is RIRA's political wing, and as such the two are inextricably linked.

  Policing Board
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will ensure that the last day for applications for appointment as independent members of the proposed Northern Ireland Policing Board is after the date that the Police (Northern Ireland) Bill has passed both Houses. [135773]

  Mr. Ingram
  The closing date for applications was 09.00 on Wednesday 22 November.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Hunt Kennels
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what examination his Department has undertaken of the extent to which traces of BSE are present in animals resident in hunt kennels. [137249]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 7 November 2000]: In 1992 the Government concluded a random survey of the brains of 444 hunting hounds to investigate the risk of BSE transmission. The results were unsatisfactory partly because of difficulties in ensuring that the brains did not start to deteriorate between the death of the hound and its examination. Although various pathological changes were seen in the central nervous tissues of some of the hounds, the results did not provide firm proof of a TSE. The results were subsequently considered by the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee who did not suggest transmission studies. Hounds were initially studied because they were perceived as a "high risk" population exposed to large quantities of potentially infective bovine tissues. Since then, a range of other species had been identified with TSEs. However, TSEs have not been found in dogs and the further study of hounds was therefore considered less critical.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the value to the farming industry of the removal of dead stock by hunt kennels. [137250]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 7 November 2000]: Hunt kennels provide a valued service to the farming industry by removing casualty and fallen stock, although information quantifying the financial value of this service is not held by the Department.

  EU Sugar Regime
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the impact on West Midland sugar beet factories of the implementation of the proposed new EU sugar regime. [137587]

  Ms Quin
  The future of sugar beet factories in the West Midlands is a commercial matter for British Sugar plc. In their comments on the impact of the current EU reform proposal, British Sugar have not suggested that there would be a particular impact on West Midlands factories.

  BSE
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the extent to which BSE at low levels is endemic in cattle. [137576]

  Ms Quin
  The BSE epidemic, currently in steady decline, would mask low level endemic infection. When the epidemic is over, surveillance for endemic disease will enable an assessment of possible endemic disease at low levels.

  Organophosphates
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what research studies since 1970 at CBD Porton Down relating to effects of long-term low
  227W
  level exposure to organophosphates were sponsored by his Department; what results were obtained; and if he will make a statement. [138050]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 15 November 2000]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer given on 20 November 2000, Official Report, columns 62–63W.

  Apart from the research project on the dose effect profiles for organophosphate sheep dips on brain electrical activity and cognitive performance in non-human primates, the Department has sponsored no study on the effects of long-term low level exposure to organophosphates at CBD Porton Down.

  Fisheries Council
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what the outcome was of the Fisheries Council held in Brussels on 17 November; and if he will make a statement. [139733]

  Mr. Morley
  The Fisheries Council met in Brussels on 17 November. I led the UK delegation, accompanied by Rhona Brankin, Deputy Minister for Rural Development in the Scottish Executive.

  The Council discussed the future policy for management of fleet capacity, building on the Commission's mid-term review of the operation of the current Multi-Annual Guidance Programme (MAGP IV). I argued the need for maintaining and strengthening a range of controls in order to bring fishing effort into better balance with fish stocks. I also argued that, given the current over capacity in the fleet, grants for constructing vessels are inappropriate. The Commission will include fleet management among the issues in its Green Paper next spring on the revision of the Common Fisheries Policy.

  The Commission reported recent scientific advice that key cod, whiting and hake stocks were close to collapse. With other member states I stressed the seriousness of this situation and supported the Commission's approach that urgent action was needed to ensure effective recovery plans were introduced for 2001. I welcomed the Commission's intention of looking at a mix of measures to aid recovery and the fact that the fishing industry was already being involved in developing these measures.

  The Council discussed the impact of fuel price rises on the fishing sector. I strongly supported the Commission in opposing unilateral national operating subsidies and welcomed the Commission's statement that measures taken by member states had to comply with state aid rules, and that they were taking action as appropriate to this end.

  The Council discussed a Commission proposal for a three-year continuation of Community financial support for fisheries enforcement. Final decisions on the proposal will be made in December. The Council agreed to a two-year rollover of existing arrangements for control and enforcement action under NEAFC in the North East Atlantic, and to a proposal the Community financial assistance for an observer scheme on tuna boats in the Gulf of Guinea. I argued that while we could accept these proposals, the Community should take a larger role in carrying out control in international waters under the responsibility of regional fisheries organisations. We pressed for decisions to be taken on this and other control
  228W
  measures by June 2001. We also pressed the Commission to seek effective controls on over-fishing of Rockall haddock at the NEAFC annual meeting this week.

  The Council welcomed the Commission's report on the operation of the Common Fisheries Policy in 1997-98, and received a report from the Commission on the latest contacts with Morocco to renegotiate a fisheries agreement. I strongly supported the Commission who pressed certain other member states to ratify the UN Agreement on Straddling and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks. I joined other member states in pressing for Community action against the Galapagos Agreement, which does not respect the UN Law of the Sea and discriminates against the Community fleet.

SCOTLAND

  Departmental Employees (New Deal)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many staff his Department employs under the New Deal for Young People. [137950]

  Dr. Reid
  I refer to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, on 13 November 2000,Official Report, columns 551–52W. There is one New Dealer who works in my Department.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Departmental Policies
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will set out, including statistical information relating as directly as possible to the constituency, the effect on the Manchester, Gorton constituency, of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997. [136175]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Department's policies and initiatives have made a significant contribution to our overall objectives of:Eradicating child poverty in 20 years, and halving it within 10;
  Promoting work as the best form of welfare for people of working age while protecting the position of those in greatest need; and, Combating poverty and
  promoting security and independence in retirement for today's and tomorrow's pensioners.

  These goals are being pursued nationwide and our achievements are set out in our annual "Opportunity for all" reports. Our second report, "Opportunity for all—One year on: making a difference" (Cm 4865, September 2000) sets out what progress has been made in the past year, as well as highlighting what more needs to be done. Nationwide statistical information is necessarily more complete than constituency level data, but the following provides a comparative guide to the effect of the Department's policies and actions in Manchester, Gorton since May 1997.

  We are spending an additional £7 billion a year on support for families and children. This includes significant increases in child benefit, which is now worth £15 a week for the eldest child and £10 a week for other children: nationally about 7 million families receive child benefit, and in Gorton 10,000 families benefit.
  229W
  We have launched the New Deals to help lone parents, the young unemployed, the long-term unemployed, the over 50s and partners of the unemployed to move from benefit into work. In the period since August 1998 the number of people claiming Jobseekers Allowance nationally has reduced from 1,323,600 to 1,067,300; in Manchester, Gorton, the number has reduced from 4,100 to 3,000. The number of lone parents who claim Income Support has decreased over the same period from 955,000 to 910,100 nationally and in Manchester, Gorton from 3,100 to 2,900.

  Next year we will be spending £4.5 billion a year extra in real terms on pensioners as a result of our policies. The Winter Fuel Payment has continued to tackle fuel poverty. Last winter, around 10 million pensioners, of whom 10,300 were in Manchester, Gorton, benefited from the payment. We have now extended the scheme to include eligible people from age 60 so that even more older people will benefit. This winter, households that qualify will receive an increased payment of £200. The Minimum Income Guarantee (MIG) targets the poorest 1.6 million pensioner families, 4,400 of whom live in Manchester, Gorton. These pensioners will benefit from our alignment of all MIG rates from April 2001, giving single pensioners at least £92.15 each week—a real increase of £12.45 for the poorest pensioners.

  Attendance Allowance
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what the average processing time is for Attendance Allowance for(a) first-time claims and (b) appeals for claims to be reconsidered for each quarter over the last three years. [136805]

  Mr. Bayley
  [holding answer 7 November 2000]: The information is not available in the form requested. The following table gives figures, for each quarter of the last three years, for the average number of days taken to process an initial Attendance Allowance (AA) claim (excluding accelerated processing under special rules for terminal illness), and the average number of days taken to review a claim (including existing claims). From 18 October 1999 reconsideration was introduced to replace the review process. All data are subject to rounding to whole days.

  Quarter

  Initial claims

  Reviews1

  Reconsiderations

  April-June 1998

  22

  39

  —

  July-September 1998

  23

  40

  —

  October-December 1998

  24

  41

  —

  January-March 1999

  25

  43

  —

  April-June 1999

  29

  39

  —

  July-September 1999

  30

  40

  —

  October-December 1999

  30

  241

  333

  January-March 2000

  32

  243

  355

  April-June 2000

  36

  —

  59

  July-September 2000

  34

  —

  54

  1All reviews, including review from new claims

  2 Cases where requests for review received before 18 October 1999

  3Cases where requests for review received on or after 18 October 1999

  New procedures for assessing claims for AA were introduced in the third quarter of 1999 to improve the accuracy of decisions on entitlement. Customers can now receive clearer explanations of decisions on their benefit entitlement. Initially these changes led to significant
  230W
  increases in the time it took to process each case which, together with a growing caseload, created a temporary backlog of work. This has been tackled as a priority, and as decision-makers have become accustomed to the new procedures, the backlog has now been cleared.

  Poverty
  Mr. Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many(a) children and (b) adults were living in poverty in each of the last 20 years; and what his estimate is of the number of children who will be living in poverty in each of the next three years. [137734]

  Mr. Bayley
  [holding answer 10 November 2000]: Poverty is a multi-faceted problem. Therefore we do not use a single definition of poverty but instead use a range of indicators to examine the problem. Information relating to the indicators can be found in the second Government "Opportunity for all" report on tackling poverty and social exclusion "One year on: making a difference" (Cm 4865). The report also describes and monitors the impact of policies we have already introduced, and sets out our plans for the future.

  Disability Living Allowance
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what steps the Benefits Agency and the Appeals Service must take following a decision by an independent Disability Living Allowance appeal tribunal to amend benefits before arrears of benefit can be paid. [138518]

  Mr. Bayley
  Appeals Service procedures are matters for the Chief Executive of The Appeals Service. The administration of Disability Living Allowance is the responsibility of the Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency, Alexis Cleveland. Following consultation with the Appeals Service, Alexis Cleveland will write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from Alexis Cleveland to Mr. Brian Donohoe, dated 21 November 2000:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to respond to your recent Parliamentary Question asking what steps the Benefits Agency (BA) and The Appeals Service (TAS) must take following a decision by an independent disability living allowance appeal tribunal to amend benefits before arrears of benefit can be paid.
  TAS issues a copy of the appeal tribunal's decision to all parties to the proceedings, including the appellant and the BA, within 2 days of the appeal hearing.
  Tribunal decision notices (DNs) on Disability Living Allowance (DLA) cases are received from each of TAS operational centres at a central distribution point in Disability Carer Benefits Directorate (DCBD). This was set up in February 2000 to register receipt of DNs and speed up the implementation process. Currently approximately 600 DNs are received each day.
  DNs are then sent immediately to the DCBD operational section with responsibility for handling particular DLA cases. The DN is linked with the DLA case papers and a decision-maker (DM) then looks at the DN to ensure that it is legally correct before it is implemented.
  Where there are no problems DNs are implemented promptly. Before any payment is made, further checks may be made on correct payment and address details, and any periods spent in hospital or residential accommodation that could affect payability of an award. Such DNs can normally be input on to the DLA computer system and payment made within 2 days. If payment of DLA is to be combined with payment of another benefit, the computer system triggers a notification to the relevant local office for their further action.

  231W
  There are occasions when a DM identifies a problem with a DN and cases may be referred back to TAS for specific reasons. These include accidental errors; incomplete decisions where the tribunal has omitted to consider all the relevant issues; and decisions which appear to be wrong in law. In all such cases, the DM requests a copy of the appeal chairman's statement of reasons and record of proceedings.
  TAS has set a standard of 15 working days for these to be produced and issued. Based on that information, implementation of those DNs may be suspended pending further appropriate action either by TAS or, in cases of error of law, consideration of an appeal against the tribunal decision to a Social Security Commissioner. Consideration must be given to all cases where an error has been identified and regrettably this will delay implementation of those decisions.
  Cases identified for a possible appeal to the Commissioner are first examined by a specialist team within DCBD and then by the Benefits Agency Decision-Making and Appeals team before they can be submitted for appeal. Customers are notified that this action is being taken and that payment of arrears has been suspended. If an appeal is not found to be appropriate, the suspension is lifted, payment is made, and the customer is again notified.
  I hope this information is helpful.

  Minimum Income Guarantee
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many additional pensioner households he expects to be entitled to the Minimum Income Guarantee as a result of the proposed pensioners' credit. [138350]

  Mr. Rooker
  As a result of the proposals announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on 9 November 2000,Official Report, columns 451–55, we expect 1.1 million additional pensioner households to benefit from the Minimum Income Guarantee in 2003.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how long information is kept on file following an unsuccessful application by a pensioner for Minimum Income Guarantee. [139693]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 21 November 2000]: Clerical documents are kept for 14 months after the decision has been made. Records maintained on the mainframe computer system are available to view for 12 weeks after the decision.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the procedures for pensioners accessing the Minimum Income Guarantee with specific reference to(a) the operation of the free phone service, (b) the role of the local Benefits Agency office and (c) the processing of forms. [139692]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 21 November 2000]: We want pensioners to be able to access services in ways that suit them. Pensioners can access the Minimum Income Guarantee (MIG) through the network of local Benefits Agency offices by writing, visiting or telephoning their local office.

  Alternatively, pensioners can claim via the MIG Claimline telephone number (0800 028 1111).

  The local office's role is to help pensioners apply for the MIG.

  Benefit Fraud Inspectorate
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will set out the pay and conditions of the Chief Executive of the Benefit Fraud Inspectorate. [139001]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Director of the Benefit Fraud Inspectorate is subject to the pay and conditions of the Senior Civil Service. His pay falls within the Senior Civil Service pay band 4 with a pay range from £57,367 to £95,625.

  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what arrangements there are in place to monitor(a) the general performance of the Benefit Fraud Inspectorate and (b) the specific performance of individual inspection teams within the Benefit Fraud Inspectorate. [139002]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Benefit Fraud Inspectorate (BFI) is part of the Department of Social Security and its Director is accountable to senior officials in the Department and to Ministers. Ministers and senior officials monitor the overall performance of the BFI through regular accountability meetings. Views on the general performance of the BFI have recently been gathered, from those local authorities that have been inspected, through the BFI' s own survey and the Local Authority Omnibus Survey published by the Department's Social Research Branch.

  The Head of Operations and his two Programme Managers monitor the specific performance of individual inspection teams within BFI. This monitoring encompasses the BFI's own internal inspection quality process which measures and provides assurance on the quality of individual inspections and inspection reports.

  Pensions (EU)
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will state the current percentages of income of retired persons in the United Kingdom and each member state of the Community, derived from public national pension payments, and those from private or occupational pension schemes; and what communications he has (a) received and (b) sent to or from other members states and institutions of the Community concerning future harmonisation of pension arrangements for citizens of the Community and Union. [139087]

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

  Benefits and Tax Credits
  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people are claiming(a) Working Families Tax Credit, (b) pensioner's Minimum Income Guarantee, (c) winter fuel allowance and (d) free television licences for the over 75s in High Peak; and how many are eligible in each case. [138812]

  Mr. Rooker
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is as follows.
  233W
  I refer my hon. Friend to the written answer given by my hon. Friend the Paymaster General to my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) on 8 November 2000, Official Report, column 274W, for the information on the Working Families Tax Credit.

  Number of pensioners in High Peak claiming the Minimum Income Guarantee and number of pensioners over 75 at May 2000

  Thousand

  High Peak parliamentary constituency

  Number

  MIG Pensioners May 20001

  2.5

  Pensioners over 752,3

  7.5

  1 Source—Income Support Statistics Quarterly Enquiry, May 2000.

  2 Source—Statistical samples held by ASD Information Centre—May 2000.

  3 Source—Number of pensioner households who will receive free TV licences is not directly known, but from the Statistical Samples it is possible to produce data on the number of pensioners receiving one or a combination of RP, IS, AA, DLA, IB or SDA by parliamentary constituency and are aged 75 or over.

  Notes:

  1. All except Winter Fuel Payment Data are based on 5 per cent. samples, therefore subject to sampling error.

  2. Figures have been rounded to the nearest hundred and expressed in thousands.

  3. Cases are allocated to each parliamentary constituency by matching the postcode against the 2000 Version 1 of the Postcode Directory supplied by ONS. Constituency boundaries are represented as at May 1997.

  4. MIG Pensioners are defined as Income Support Benefit units where either the claimant and/or the partner is aged 60 or over.

  Regarding Winter Fuel Payments' currently being made for this winter, provisional information shows that around 17,500 payments will be made to people eligible. These payments will be made before Christmas.

  1Source—Matching Intelligence Data Analysis Service Winter Fuel Payment 2000–01 initial exercise.

  Pension Credit
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) if he will estimate, using the same assumptions as used to calculate how many people are eligible for one or both elements of the pension credit, how many people will receive both the guaranteed income top-up element and the savings credit element to a value of(a) up to £4, (b) £5 to 9, (c) £10 to 14, (d) £15 to 19 and (e) £20 to £25 per week; [138504]

  (2) using the same assumptions as used to calculate how many people are eligible for one or both elements of the pension credit, if he will calculate how many people will receive the savings credit element but not the guaranteed income top-up element to a value of (a) up to £4, (b) £5 to 9 and (c) £10 to £13.80 per week. [138506]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 16 November 2000]: I refer my right hon. Friend to paragraph 16 of chapter 4 of the Pension Credit consultation document (Cm 4900).

  IT Systems
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what preparations he has made to ensure that the IT systems within his Department will be able to cope with the new weekly benefit saving rules that are due to be implemented next year; and what representations he has received on this issue. [139122]
  234W
  Angela Eagle
  The Department administers the payments of subsidy to local authorities by means of a combination of micro (PC) and mainframe computer systems. The first payments for the "new weekly benefit saving rules" will be made in August 2001 (payments under the new scheme will be made quarterly, in arrears). The Department is currently considering the programming changes needed to meet the requirements of the new scheme and these will be implemented well in advance of the first payment date.

  Vaccine Damage Payment Act 1979
  Mr. John M. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he proposes to reduce the disability threshold under the Vaccine Damage Payment Act 1979 as anticipated in his statement of 27 June; and if he will make a further statement. [139123]

  Mr. Bayley
  In his statement of 27 June 2000,Official Report, columns 719–20, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made clear that two of the changes he announced—that is, an increase in the time limits for claiming a Vaccine Damage Payment (VDP) to age 21 for children and a reduction in the disability threshold from 80 per cent. to 60 per cent., would require amendments to the Vaccine Damage Payments Act 1979. We intend to legislate to bring about these changes as soon as the legislative timetable permits.

  State Second Pension
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what the implications are for the level and structure of the state second pension of his recent announcement on(a) the level of the Minimum Income Guarantee and (b) the proposed pensioner credit. [139398]

  Mr. Rooker
  The recent announcements about the Minimum Income Guarantee and the Pension Credit will not affect the level or the structure of the State Second Pension. However, taken as a whole, the changes we are introducing will result in a boost to the incomes of all pensioners.

  Pension Clawback
  Dr. Stoate
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to abolish the pension clawback; and if he will make a statement. [139494]

  Mr. Rooker
  We have no plans to abolish pension clawback.

  Winter Heating Allowance
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many households will benefit from the winter heating allowance in Coventry, South this year. [139044]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 21 November 2000]: For winter 1999–2000 16,403 customers in the Coventry, South constituency qualified for a Winter Fuel Payment.

  Pensioner Incomes
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate how many pensioners were receiving Income Support in Newcastle upon Tyne in
  235W
  1996 with their average total benefit; and how many pensioners are receiving the Minimum Income Guarantee with their average total benefit. [139645]

  Mr. Rooker
  The information is in the table.

  Income Support pensioners/Minimum Income Guarantee recipients in Newcastle, May 1996 and May 2000

  Thousand

  Quarter

  Number of pensioners

  Average weekly award(£ per week)

  1996—May

  12.3

  33.10

  2000—May

  11.5

  41.91

  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 thousand.

  4. Cases are allocated to each local authority by matching the postcode against the 1997 version 1 and the 2000 version 1 of the Postcode Directory.

  Source:

  Income Support Quarterly Statistical Enquiries, May 1996 and May 2000.
  The downward trend of pensioners claiming Income Support/Minimum Income Guarantee is due to the fact that pensioners are retiring on larger incomes due to SERPS and occupational pensions. This trend has been halted following the introduction of the earnings linked MIG in April 1999.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Departmental Policies
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will set out, including statistical information relating as directly as possible to the constituency, the effect on the Manchester, Gorton constituency, of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997. [136171]

  Mr. Wills
  Outlined below are details of the effect on the Gorton constituency and Manchester LEA of a range of the Department's policies.

  Early Excellence Centres

  The Government are funding a pilot programme of Early Excellence Centres (EECs) delivering high quality integrated early education and child care on a one-stop basis to children and their families.

  In Manchester, the Martenscroft and Moss Side Zone will build on their integrated all-day, all-year care and education by encouraging local private and voluntary providers to expand their services. The centre will have at its core the impressive Martenscroft and Moss Side Children's Centres. Both centres currently provide care and education for children from six months to five years. Staff will work across the zone to develop outreach work, co-ordinate community services and provide professional support and advice to all settings, including the private and voluntary sector and local primary schools, to improve quality of provision and children's attainment.

  Early years places

  In 1997 around 9,821 three and four-year-olds were receiving free, part time early education in Manchester. This has increased to 10,036 in 2000. Already all four-year-olds in Manchester are entitled to a free place. By September 2004, all three-year-olds will be also be entitled to such a place.
  236W
  Sure Start

  LA Programme supporting a small community in the Clayton area, which has a well-developed resource (the Family Support Initiative at Clayton children's centre). Among the interesting services designed to address the main Sure Start principles are plans to recruit a dietician and to disseminate nutritional advice. This programme is one of the first trailblazer projects to receive full Sure Start approval. Total funding up to £2,522,521

  Sure Start Benchill has brought together statutory and voluntary agencies to listen to the views of local people. They aim to build the capacity of the local community, to establish Benchill as an independent project, ultimately directed by a management committee of local people. Local people have identified a need for play space and facilities, and for more nursery and crèche provision. Lead Partner—Barnardos.

  The authority has been invited to submit applications for the second wave of Sure Start programmes.

  Beacon schools

  The Beacon schools initiative is designed to raise standards through the dissemination of good practice. Beacon schools are schools which have been identified as among the best performing in the country and represent examples of successful practice which are to be brought to the attention of the rest of the education service with a view to sharing and spreading that effective practice to others. Beacon schools offer advice on a wide range of areas including specific curriculum subjects, pupil monitoring, school management, provision for gifted and talented children, improving parent involvement, special educational needs and anti-bullying strategies.

  There are a total of 550 beacon schools (from September 2000). Six of these beacon schools are in Manchester LEA: Trinity CE High School, CE School of the Resurrection, St. Catherine's RC Primary School, St. Cuthbert's RC Primary School, Piper Hill Special School and North Manchester High School.

  Specialist schools

  Specialist schools seek school improvement through a special focus on one area of the curriculum. They achieve their status in competition with other applicant schools. They are existing secondary schools which provide rich experience in their chosen specialisms, in addition to the National Curriculum. As well as achieving high standards in their chosen specialisms, the Government expect them to be a resource for other schools and their local communities, equipping young people with the skills they need to progress into employment, further training or higher education according to their individual abilities, aptitudes and ambitions.

  Within Manchester LEA, the following schools have specialist school status: Brookway High School (Sports), Parrs Wood High School (Technology), Newall Green High School (Arts), Levenshulme High School (Language), Wright Robinson School (Sports), St. Matthews RC High School (Technology) and Trinity CE High School (Technology).

  Performance indicators

  Results at both Key Stage 2 and GCSE/GNVQ have increased since 1997.

  Key Stage 2: Eligible pupils achieving level 4 or above

  Percentage

  LEA averages

  1997

  1999

  2000

  English

  54.3

  61.1

  65.0

  Maths

  53.9

  61.3

  64.0

  Science

  59.1

  70.8

  78.0

  GCSE and GNVQ results

  Percentage

  LEA averages

  1997

  1999

  2000

  5 † A*—C

  26.3

  30.2

  30.3

  5 † A*—G

  75.2

  79.1

  83.3

  No passes

  14.4

  10.1

  7.3

  237W
  Class Sizes

  Statistics for September 2000 show that Manchester LEA had 362 (2.8 per cent.) pupils in classes of 31 or more, compared with 3,971 (24 per cent.) in January 1998. The national figure for September 2000 shows the number of pupils in infant classes of 31 or more taught by one teacher was 30,000 (2 per cent.), compared to 485,000 (29 per cent.) in January 1998.

  Education Action Zones

  Education Action Zones were proposed in the White Paper "Excellence in schools" and have their legislative basis in the School Standards and Framework Act 1998. EAZs create an urgent focus on raising standards through local partnerships between parents, schools, businesses. LEAs, TECs and others. Zones are based around small clusters of schools in areas of relative deprivation. Each zone runs for an initial three years with the possibility of extension to five years. In return for setting challenging targets for improvement across the zone, an EAZ receives up to £1 million per year in additional support from the Department and the private sector. There are now 73 EAZs. Of the 25 first round zones, 20 have recently been extended from three to five years. The other five zones have been given until 1 December to prove that they are ready for extension.

  Manchester has two Education Action Zones: East Manchester and Wythenshawe Partnerships.

  Excellence in Cities

  Excellence in Cities (EiC) is designed to remedy successive failures to address the educational problems of the major cities where standards have been too low for too long.

  It was launched in March 1999 by the Prime Minister and David Blunkett. The programme went live in schools in September 1999. Its progress, initially focused on secondary schools, has been rapid.

  The Government expanded the programme in March 2000 and Phase 2 began in schools in September 2000. This phase brought a further 23 LEA areas into EiC and introduced a pilot of the three core strands of EiC in primary schools in Phase 1 areas.

  Manchester LEA was designated an Excellence in Cities (EiC) area in Phase 1 of the Programme. The partnership. which covers all 23 secondary schools, is taking full advantage of EiC to maximise the impact. 'Excellence in Manchester' now has:
  21 Learning Support Units (LSUs);
  two Beacon and two Specialist Secondary Schools approved under EiC;
  six Gifted and Talented Pupil clusters and;
  some 65 Learning mentors.

  In addition, three City Learning Centres (CLCs) and a mini Education Action Zone (EAZ) are due to open in September 2000, with a further two CLCs pre-committed for September 2001.

  EiC is now being piloted in primary schools within all Phase 1 areas. The Manchester partnership has an approved plan. Although there were some conditions to be met for funding to be released, it was noted that the plan was "good and everything

  Funding to Manchester LEA

  £million

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  SSA

  181.603

  198.890

  207.651

  216.249

  Standards Fund

  2.275

  2.799

  10.286

  20.292

  EAZ

  —

  —

  0.272

  1.739

  NEG

  6.038

  0.263

  0.404

  —

  £290 million Special Grant to Schools

  —

  —

  —

  2.703

  £50 million Special Grant to LEAs

  —

  —

  —

  0.552

  Notes:

  1. £527 million was taken from the total SSA to fund the Nursery Voucher Scheme in 1997–98

  2. Funding for the reduction of (infant) class sizes was part of the Standards Fund in 1998–99

  3. Education Action Zone funding is paid to the Zone not to the LEA

  4. Standards Fund/Gest figures are DfEE contribution only and exclude capital funding

  5. Some elements of the Standards Fund are targeted at adult education, these have been included

  6. Nursery education grant data are not available for 2000–01
  238W
  required had been done". From September, 56 primary schools in Manchester will introduce the "learning mentor", "gifted and talented" and "LSU" strands of EiC.

  PPP/PFI Projects

  The Government have a manifesto commitment to use Public Private Partnerships (PPPs) to improve the standard of school buildings. The Private Finance Initiative (PFI) is a concept which can be applied to most aspects of public sector operation. It transforms Departments, agencies, local authorities and similar bodies from being owners and operators of assets into purchasers of services from the private sector. Private firms become long-term providers of services rather than simply up-front asset builders. This works to the mutual advantage of users of public services, taxpayers and companies seeking new business opportunities.

  Temple Primary School serves a multi-faith, ethnically diverse community. The existing school has separate primary, nursery and dining buildings which are of an outdated Victorian design. Key Stage 2 provision is particularly unsuitable for current curriculum and operational requirements.

  The PFI project is to provide a replacement Primary School which will provide a more appropriate learning environment capable of supporting modern teaching methods and curricula for pupils, and adults and the community.

  The replacement school and play areas have been designed to be fully accessible for people with disabilities, thus allowing the full range of mainstream opportunities to be available to all. In addition the new school site will incorporate playing fields and a wildlife area, facilities which are not currently available.

  The contract was signed in March 2000 between Manchester City Council and Turner Constructions and has a value of £3.7 million.

  Capital for Manchester, Gorton under New Deal for Schools

  £1.3 billion has been provided from the New Deal for Schools (NDS) from 1997–98 until 2001–02 to address the backlog of urgent repairs in school buildings that had built up after 18 years of under-funding under the previous Administration.

  Within Manchester, the following allocations have been made:

  Old Hall Drive Primary School—£141,828—roof repair

  Crowcroft Park Primary School—£40,000—replacement windows

  Stanley Grove Primary—£275,000—replacement of Horsa Unit

  Wilbraham Primary—£350,000—replacement of Horsa Unit

  Whalley Range—£1,268,206—provision of sports hall and two classrooms

  St. Agnes CE Primary—part of a nine school roofing package worth —724,400

  Wright Robinson—£459,200—replacement windows

  Wright Robinson—part of a three school package for upgrading of technical rooms—270,000

  Gorton Mount Infant, Heald Place Primary and All Saints Primary—part of a nine school package to upgrade toilets—£195,000.

  LEA Funding
  239W
  Failing schools

  Manchester LEA has had 24 schools in special measures. 10 of those have been restored to health.

  Student numbers at all FEFC funded institutions, where the home postcode is in the Gorton constituency, 1996–97,1997–98,1998–99

  FEFC funded

  Non-FEFC funded

  16-18

  Adult

  16-18

  Adult

  FT

  PT

  FT

  PT

  FT

  PT

  FT

  PT

  1996–97

  1,143

  339

  1,143

  4,279

  40

  86

  64

  68

  1997–98

  1,216

  278

  1,125

  4,342

  34

  89

  101

  144

  1998–99

  1,282

  271

  1,291

  4,233

  42

  104

  182

  180

  Notes:

  1. Under-16s included in 16–18 figures

  2. Where age unknown, included in adult figures

  Sources:

  1996–97: Individualised Student Record 10 (December 1997)

  1996–98: Individualised Student Record 13 (December 1998)

  1998–99: Individualised Student Record 16 (December 1999) for all FEFC funded institutions

  Education Maintenance Allowances

  EMAs are part of the Government's commitment to make sure that all young people have the opportunity to fulfil their potential, no matter what their financial circumstances may be.

  Eligible young people can receive an allowance of up to £30 a week (£40 in two areas) if they stay on at school or college, with additional bonuses payable for retention and achievement

  Manchester has 2,180 applications for EMAs at the end of October. We expect more applications when they send in their statistical return for November. People are eligible for an EMA in Manchester if they were in Year 11 in July 2000, and have continued in Further Education this September. Manchester are piloting the EMA variant where the maximum EMA is £30 per week and termly bonuses of £50 are paid for 95 per cent. attendance. The maximum amount of EMA is payable if the young person's natural parents earn less than £13,000. A tapered amount is payable if parental income is between £13,000 and £30,000. No EMA is payable if parental income is above £30,000.

  Pioneer Centres

  Greater Manchester Bangladesh Association (GMBA)

  GMBA is a community organisation based within the Longsight area of Manchester. The community centre has been delivering IT training to the local residents and members of the community for around 12 years.

  The centre has always operated an open door policy on recruitment to the various full-time and part-time courses run. The ICT project has enabled the centre to increase the availability of its facilities to small businesses within the area and local residents who do not necessarily require formal training programmes, but wish to access a computer.

  Seminars have been held at various local libraries, as well as teaming up with people from Manchester Technology Management Centre, who are delivering a series of seminars on e-commerce and telematics to the local business community.

  Unemployment

  There has been a notable improvement in the Gorton constituency unemployment claimant position. At May 1997 there were 4,740 unemployed claimants, with an unemployment rate of 23 per cent. (compared with a UK rate of 5.6 per cent.). By October 2000 the Gorton figures had fallen to 2,988 or 12.5 per cent. (UK 3.5 per cent.).

  New Deal for Young People in the constituency has been successful. 1,817 young people have joined the New Deal, with 755 entering into employment.

  Schoolchildren (E-mail Addresses)
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what progress has been made 240W
  The average turn round time for schools that came into special measures after 1 May 1997 is 20 months.

  Further Education

  with the Government's commitment to provide every school pupil with an e-mail address; and how he intends to ensure that children will not be (a) individually identifiable and (b) open to approaches by paedophiles when such addresses are allocated. [136213]

  Mr. Wills
  [holding answer 6 November 2000]: The Government want fifty per cent. of pupils and students to have their own e-mail address by 2002. Good progress is being made towards achieving this. The majority of schools are now connected to the internet and almost all have been allocated a standard domain name (<school name>. <geographical area>.sch.uk). Currently, 9 per cent. of primary school pupils, 26 per cent. of secondary school pupils and 13 per cent. of special school pupils have a personal e-mail address. Some schools are providing access through whole class/or teaching group e-mail accounts.

  We all share a responsibility to make sure that students' use of the internet is appropriate and safe. A range of measures to help to protect children have been publicised by my Department, via the Superhighway Safety information pack and website. These include, for example, monitoring pupils' computer use and the use of filtering software to prevent access to unsuitable internet material. The pack also includes a Disney 'Doug' poster, which promotes safe internet use to young children. It is the school's duty to ensure that every child is safe and that no individual child should be identifiable or contactable. Our publications recommend that school websites should not contain either personal e-mail or postal addresses.

  Non-departmental Public Bodies (Scotland)
  Mr. Alasdair Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the non-departmental public bodies responsible to him which have duties relating to Scotland, indicating their budget and staffing in Scotland, the number of Scottish board members and their emoluments. [137699]

  Mr. Wills
  Of the 13 Executive NDPBs responsible to the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, the following have a GB or UK-wide remit.
  241W
  a. "British Educational Communications and Technology Agency (BECTA)"

  HQ based in Coventry. No staff based in Scotland. One Board Member representing Scottish interests—unpaid.

  b. "Construction Industry Training Board (CITB)"
  HQ based in Norfolk. 111 staff based in Scotland. 2 Board members representing Scottish interests—both unpaid.

  c. "Disability Rights Commission (DRC)"

  HQ based in Manchester. Ten members of staff based in Scotland with a further 4 expected to be recruited. One Commissioner with special knowledge of Scotland, receiving a daily fee of £134.

  d. "Engineering Construction Industry Training Board" HQ in Hertfordshire. Five members of staff based in Scotland. Five Board Members representing Scottish interests—all unpaid.

  e. "Equal Opportunities Commission (EOC)"

  HQ based in Manchester. 12 members of staff based in Scotland. One Commissioner with special knowledge of Scotland, receiving a daily fee of £134.

  f. "Investors in People UK (IiP UK)"

  HQ based in London. No staff based in Scotland. One Board member from Scotland-unpaid.

  g. "Remploy Limited"

  HQ based in London. 962 staff based in Scotland. No Board representation for Scotland.

  h. "The Students Loan Company Limited (SLC)"

  HQ based in Glasgow. All the company's 525 members of staff based in Scotland. The SLC operates within overall strategies set by the SoS for Education and Employment and Scottish Ministers. None of the SLC's Board members are designated to represent a specific region but Scottish Ministers, and the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, are entitled to send a senior official as an "assessor" to attend all of the SLC's Board and Committee meetings to represent their interests.

  The remaining information is not held centrally in the form requested but general information on expenditure, staffing, board members and levels of remuneration is published annually in the Cabinet Office publication "Public Bodies". Copies of "Public Bodies 1999" have been placed in the Libraries of the House and "Public Bodies 2000" is due to be published next month. Information on board membership and remuneration can also be downloaded from the Cabinet Office Public Appointments Directory website (www.cabinet-office.gov.uk).

  Schools (Personal Safety)
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what action he is taking to encourage schools to consider and disseminate information and awareness of personal safety from crime, and to incorporate this issue into teacher training programmes. [138646]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 16 November 2000]: Safety education for pupils is covered within personal, social and health education, introduced as part of the revised National Curriculum. This includes teaching pupils about managing risk, how to stay safe and where to get help. A working group is currently developing guidance to help schools teach safety issues. In addition, citizenship education encourages partnerships between schools and community organisations such as the police.
  242W
  The Standards Fund school security grant of £22 million includes funding for training school staff and governors in personal safety techniques, prevention organisations and the police.

  Mandarin
  Jane Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to encourage the teaching of Mandarin in schools. [138804]

  Jacqui Smith
  There has been a steady expansion in learning of Mandarin Chinese in the Specialist Language Colleges sector, where around a third (31 institutions) offer accredited courses to 'A' Level. However, many more offer 'enrichment'—courses that are non-accredited but which give pupils enhanced learning opportunities. These can take the form of masterclasses, links with other colleges involving the sharing of teaching materials, exchanges and study visits.

  The Government are also supporting a £50,000 pilot project for the teaching of Mandarin at the Djangoly CTC. We recognise the importance of young people having access to languages like Mandarin in developing trade and cultural links with China.

  Objective 3 Grants
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will publish the percentage of Objective 3 European Social Fund grants that have been awarded to voluntary sector organisations for each of the past 10 years for which figures are available. [139126]

  Ms Jowell
  The percentage of Objective 3 European Social Fund grants that have been directly awarded to voluntary sector organisations in Great Britain for each of the past 10 years is as follows:

  Percentage

  1990

  9.2

  1991

  10.2

  1992

  10.8

  1993

  12.1

  1994

  8.3

  1995

  7.7

  1996

  8.2

  1997

  8.5

  1998

  13.1

  1999

  119.5

  1 1999 figures excludes Scotland. as information is not currently available

  These are likely to be underestimates of the percentage actually received by the voluntary sector as many voluntary sector projects receive funding indirectly from other sectors, especially local authorities and Training and Enterprise Councils.

  Medium Density Fibreboard (Schools)
  Mr. Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what guidance he has given to schools regarding the use of medium density fibreboard; and if he will make a statement. [139255]
  243W
  Jacqui Smith
  The Department has not issued guidance on the use of medium density fibreboard in schools. This is because existing legislation covers the use of materials that may be deemed hazardous in certain circumstances. For example, as with any other workplace, schools are bound by the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health (COSHH) Regulations 1989.

  Special Needs
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what the timetable is for revising the Code of Practice for Special Educational Needs. [139273]

  Jacqui Smith
  We are considering carefully the responses to consultation on the revised Special Educational Needs Code of Practice and aim to bring forward a final version for approval by both Houses following the Special Educational Needs and Disability Bill.

  The arrangements for revising the Special Educational Needs Code of Practice for Wales are matters for the Welsh Assembly.

  Retired School Teachers
  Ms Perham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what measures he has taken to encourage retired school teachers to return to work. [139435]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  We have introduced a number of measures to make it more attractive to retired teachers to undertake further teaching service. Teachers who have retired are now able to undertake substantial periods of re-employment within any financial year without affecting their pension. The pensions of those teachers who have retired with actuarially reduced benefits are unaffected by any re-employment. We have also made it possible for all retired teachers who return to either full-time or part-time teaching to elect to re-join the Teachers' Pension Scheme and accrue additional retirement benefit entitlement.

  Pupil Numbers
  Dr. Stoate
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many pupils were enrolled in(a) primary and (b) secondary schools in each of the last five academic years in (i) England and (ii) Kent. [139479]

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

  Number of pupils1 in maintained primary and secondary schools

  Number of pupils in maintained primary schools

  Number of pupils in maintained secondary schools

  Kent Local Education Authority

  1996

  135,598

  103,769

  1997

  137,962

  104,812

  1998

  139,328

  105,900

  1999

  115,004

  88,966

  2000

  114,835

  91,288

  244W

  Number of pupils1 in maintained primary and secondary schools

  Number of pupils in maintained primary schools

  Number of pupils in maintained secondary schools

  England

  1996

  4,389,364

  3,010,416

  1997

  4,429,043

  3,041,584

  1998

  4,460,646

  3,072,822

  1999

  4,460,171

  3,121,901

  2000

  4,435,346

  3,181,813

  1Full-time and part-time pupils

  Unruly Pupils
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to consult teachers and parents on his proposed guidelines on the legitimate use of physical restraint on unruly pupils. [139480]

  Jacqui Smith
  We have undertaken an extensive consultation exercise on the draft of the guidance to help schools and local education authorities plan their strategies for managing the behaviour of children with severe behavioural difficulties referred to in my reply to the hon. Member's question on 30 October 2000,Official Report, column 288W.

  Those consulted included all the teacher unions, a wide range of other professional bodies (including the National Association Of Schools For Children With Emotional And Behavioural Difficulties and the Association of Workers for Children With Emotional And Behavioural Difficulties), bodies representing parents and individual parents and teachers who expressed an interest in the issue.

  School Teachers' Pay
  Mr. Hope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on school teachers' pay. [140119]

  Mr. Blunkett
  I have today made an order under the School Teachers' Pay and Conditions Act 1991 to give statutory force to the new pay arrangements for teachers entailing assessment against a performance threshold for those who wish to have access to a pay increase of £2,001 and an upper pay scale. This follows consultation on detailed provisions further to my acceptance of recommendations made by the independent School Teachers' Review Body in its special report published on 20 October. Threshold assessment, which has been suspended since the High Court ruled on 14 July that it had to be covered by an order under the 1991 Act, will restart as soon as possible. The main elements of the threshold procedures are as follows:The threshold standards remain the same as those my Department promulgated in March;
  Teachers in England who have applied to cross the threshold will be assessed on their original applications—this means no extra work for teachers or headteachers in the initial stages of the threshold process;
  Teachers in Wales have until 16 March 2001 to submit threshold applications; headteachers in England may accept late applications up to 16 March 2001 in specified exceptional circumstances;

  245W
  Teachers can be called upon to assist heads with assessments of other teachers for whom they have management responsibility;
  Headteachers must give written feedback to all unsuccessful applicants. Teachers who feel they have been wrongly assessed will be able to seek a review.

  Cambridge Education Associates, who manage the external assessors, have started to contact schools in England to arrange external assessor visits and aim to complete these as soon as possible. Headteachers in England who have not already done so should complete their assessments and send them to CEA by 26 January 2001. Headteachers in Wales should complete their assessments by 18 May 2001. All teachers who successfully meet the standards will get their pay increases as soon as possible after being notified of their success. These pay increases will be backdated to 1 September 2000. In England a new special grant will cover the extra pay costs of teachers crossing the threshold. In Wales the National Assembly has made extra funding to cover these costs available to local education authorities.

TREASURY

  US Tax System
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will assess the impact of the tax system in the United States on encouraging small business start-ups. [136406]

  Mr. Timms
  The Government keep under review the tax regimes of other major countries and their respective impacts on business competitiveness and entrepreneurship. The tax system in the United States is perceived to be generally supportive of the creation and growth of small businesses.

  Non-departmental Public Bodies (Scotland)
  Mr. Alasdair Morgan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the non-departmental public bodies responsible to him which have duties relating to Scotland, indicating their budget and staffing in Scotland, the number of Scottish board members and their emoluments. [137625]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The following non-departmental public bodies, sponsored by the Treasury, have a remit which covers the United Kingdom:

  Bank of England

  Royal Mint Advisory Committee on the Design of Coins, Medals, Seals and

  Decorations

  Statistics Commission

  Policyholders Protection Board

  Financial Services Tribunal.

  The remaining information is not held centrally in the form requested but general information on expenditure, staffing, board members and levels of remuneration is published annually in the Cabinet Office publication "Public Bodies" and, with respect to the Bank of England, in the Bank's Annual Report. Copies of "Public Bodies 1999" and of the Bank of England's Annual Report 2000 have been placed in the Libraries of the House and "Public Bodies 2000" is due to be published next month. Information on board
  246W
  membership and remuneration can also be downloaded from the Cabinet Office Public Appointments Directory website (www.cabinet-office.gov.uk).

  Ultra-low Sulphur Fuel
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to Cm 4917, what estimate he has made of the cost of reducing the tax on ultra low sulphur petrol by(a) 2p per litre and (b) 2p per litre for each of the three financial years from 2001–02 onwards; and if he will make a statement. [138462]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 15 November 2000]: Estimates of the cost in 2001–02 of reducing the duty on Ultra Low Sulphur Petrol by 2p per litre and of reducing the duty on Ultra Low Sulphur Diesel by 3p were published in the pre-Budget Report of 8 November 2000. If these cuts are implemented in Budget 2001, estimates of their cost in 2001–02, 2002–03 and 2003–04 will be published in the Financial Statement and Budget Report.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if diesel vehicles commonly used by farmers on public highways will be able to benefit from the reduction of duty on ultra low sulphur diesel. [139630]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 21 November 2000]: Yes.

  Building Repairs (VAT)
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has sought approval from the European Commission for the changes to VAT on repairs on empty buildings. [139113]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I refer the right hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Mr. Loughton) on 15 November 2000,Official Report, column 760W.

  Stamp Duty
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has sought approval from the European Commission for his proposed changes to stamp duty. [139112]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Government will work with the European Commission to ensure that the stamp duty relief for disadvantaged communities announced in the pre-Budget report can be implemented in Budget 2001. Formal notification will be sent to the Commission in due course.

  Savings Accounts
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the level of savings in ISA accounts over the next five years; and if he will make a statement. [139418]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The provisional value of funds held in ISAs on 5 April 2000 was £28.7 billion, and a further £9.2 billion had been invested by 5 July 2000. The value of funds in future years will depend on a large number of factors including levels of subscriptions, transfers from matured TESSAs, interest rates, share price movements, and withdrawals. The Chancellor announced in the pre-Budget report that to build on the success of
  247W
  ISAs, the higher £7,000 contribution limit (including the higher £3,000 contribution limit for cash ISAs) will be retained for a further five years until April 2006.

  Mr. Love
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many ISA accounts have been opened; how much has been invested in total in ISA accounts to date; how much was invested in(a) PEPs and (b) TESSAs in the same introductory period; and if he will make a statement. [139417]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Individual Savings Accounts have attracted £37.6 billion in their first year and a quarter. Almost 9.3 million accounts were opened in 1999–2000.

  There were some 3.1 million TESSAs after their first year and a quarter, in which £10.4 billion had been invested. A similar comparative figure for PEPs is not available, but PEPs attracted only £480 million in their first year from 270,000 investors, and a further £200 million from 120,000 investors in their second year.

  Charities
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the estimated annual cost is to his Department of tax allowances granted to charities operating in England and Wales. [139463]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The total cost of tax reliefs for charities in the UK is estimated at over £2 billion for 1999–2000. Where available, a breakdown of the cost of tax reliefs for charities in England and Wales are shown in the table.

  £million

  United Kingdom

  England and Wales

  Repayment of tax1

  821

  775

  Business rates relief

  600

  540

  Inheritance tax exemption of transfers to charities on death

  350

  320

  1 Breakdown provided covers England, Wales and Northern Ireland

  Third World Debt
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his latest estimate is of the level of debt owed by countries in the Third World. [139466]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  There is no agreed definition of the "Third World". Full figures for debt held by countries can be found in "Global Development Finance, 2000" published by the World bank.

  Departmental Investment Strategies
  Barbara Follett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he proposes to publish the White Paper on Departmental Investment Strategies; and when Departments will publish their own departmental in vestment strategies. [139900]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  "Departmental Investment Strategies: A Summary" (Cm 4916) is being presented to Parliament and published today. Departments are also publishing their own Departmental Investment Strategies on their websites today and copies are available in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Tax Credits
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate how many claimants there are of(a) working family tax credit child care payments, (b) disabled persons' tax credit and (c) disabled persons' tax credit child care payments in Newcastle upon Tyne; and what is the average payment in each case. [139646]

  Dawn Primarolo
  There are too few cases in the 5 per cent. sample used for these analyses to provide reliable estimates at the local authority level of the number of families receiving the child care tax credit within Working Families' Tax Credit (WFTC), or the average extra payment resulting from this credit.

  For the total number of families benefiting from WFTC in Newcastle upon Tyne, I refer my hon. Friend to my answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) on 8 November 2000, Official Report, column 274W. About 6.7 per cent. of families on WFTC in the North East region at May 2000 received the child care tax credit, and their average extra payment resulting from this credit was about £29 per week.

  Estimates of the number of recipients of the Disabled Person's Tax Credit (DPTC) in each local authority at the end of April are shown at Table 5.3 in the DPTC Quarterly Enquiry for April 2000. A copy has been placed in the Library. The average weekly payment to recipients in Newcastle upon Tyne was £67.

  Working Families Tax Credit
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 16 November,Official Report, column 758W, what information he has received from the Department of Social Security with respect to benchmarking the level of fraud associated with the working families tax credit. [139747]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Department of Social Security has not benchmarked the level of fraud within the Working Families' Tax Credit.

  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people in(a) part-time and (b) full-time employment in the Monmouth constituency receive the Working Families Tax Credit. [139276]

  Mr. Roy
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the number of families in each parliamentary constituency who receive the Working Families Tax Credit.[139102]

  Dawn Primarolo
  For the total number of recipients I refer my hon. Friends to my answer to hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor) on 1 November 2000,Official Report, column 515W.

  Cold-related Deaths
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer in (1) how many deaths in England and Wales in 1999 hypothermia was mentioned on the death certificate, broken down between(a) all ages, (b) those aged 60 to 74, (c) those aged 75 to 84 and (d) those aged 85 and over; [137268]
  249W
  (2) how many excess winter deaths there were in England and Wales in 1999–2000 (a) in all age groups, (b) for those aged 60 to 74, (c) for those aged 75 to 84 and (d) for those aged 85 and over; [137269]

  (3) in how many deaths in 1999 in England and Wales hypothermia was mentioned on the death certificate for (a) all age groups, (b) those aged 60 to 74, (c) those aged 75 to 84 and (d) those aged 85 years and over; [136545]

  (4) what was the number of excess winter deaths in 1999–2000 for (a) all ages, (b) those aged 60 to 74, (c) those aged 75 to 84 and (d) those aged 85 years and over. [136550]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician, I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from John Pullinger to Mr. Austin Mitchell, dated 22 November 2000:
  The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your recent questions on deaths in 1999 in England and Wales where hypothermia was mentioned on the death certificate (136545/137268) and the number of excess winter deaths in 1999–2000 (136550/137269). I am replying in his absence.
  The information requested is given in the following tables.

  Deaths with a mention of hypothermia (International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, code N991.6)—England and Wales, 1999

  Number

  All ages

  325

  0–59

  58

  60–74

  55

  75–84

  102

  85+

  100

  Excess winter deaths for winter 1999–2000 (provisional figures)— England and Wales

  Number

  All ages

  49,440

  0–59

  2,660

  60–74

  9,350

  75–84

  16,990

  85+

  20,440

  The figures for winter 1999–2000 are provisional and will only be finalised in October 2001 when data for all deaths occurring in 2000 becomes complete.

  Excess winter deaths are defined by National Statistics as the difference between the number of deaths during the four winter months (December to March) and the average number of deaths during the preceding autumn (August to November) and the following summer (April to July).

  Departmental Employees (HIV)
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will take steps to ensure that people who are HIV-positive do not suffer discrimination as a result of employment practices followed by his Department. [137779]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Treasury is an equal opportunities employer. Employment policies are in place to guard against discrimination to ensure that there are no 250W
  unfair or unlawful discriminatory barriers to employment or advancement in the Treasury. These policies apply to all staff.

  UNUM Ltd.
  Mr. Hilary Benn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) how many complaints he has received in the last five years about UNUM Ltd. in relation to the operation of its permanent health insurance policies; and if he will make a statement; [139258]

  (2) if he will draw the attention of the Financial Services Authority to complaints he has received about UNUM Ltd. in relation to the operation of its permanent health insurance policies; [139259]

  (3) if he will make a statement on his inquiries into UNUM Ltd. in relation to the operation of its permanent health insurance policies in the case of Mr. E Sales. [139403]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Treasury has received a small number of complaints about companies which provide permanent health insurance products since becoming responsible for the insurance industry in 1998, and no specific inquiries have been launched in respect of the case of Mr. Sales. However, I understand that Mr. Sales's complaint has been considered by the Insurance Ombudsman.

  Arbitration for group insurance policies will in future fall within the remit of the Financial Ombudsman service which will be extended to provide access for those who cannot be considered under the present arrangements.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Judges' Lodgings
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if stocked wine cellars provided for the use of judges in judges' lodgings are provided(a) free of charge, (b) at cost price or (c) at commercial price; and if he will make a statement. [139148]

  Jane Kennedy
  Stocked wine cellars are not provided for judges. Any wine purchased by the lodgings manager for consumption during periods of judicial occupation is purchased at retail prices and is paid for from the judges' weekly allowance.

  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what guidance is given to High Court judges on using judges' lodgings for(a) formal and (b) private entertaining; what budget is given to each judge for formal entertaining; and what the total amount spent on entertaining by judges using lodgings was in each of the last five years. [139227]

  Jane Kennedy
  Guidance agreed with the Judiciary on the use of lodgings states that entertaining should generally not exceed one formal lunch party and one dinner party per week and that"numbers invited to lunch parties are in any event expected to be modest".
  251W
  There is no other guidance relating to private entertaining.

  A weekly allowance of £310 per week is made where one judge occupies a lodgings and £230 per week per judge where a lodgings is occupied by two judges or more, to cover the cost of all food and drink for judge, clerk and marshal. This sum also has to cover all formal entertaining. Should a judge exceed the allowance allocated, for whatever reason, the additional expenditure will be paid by the judge.

  No separate records are held of the cost of formal entertaining.

  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department on how many occasions judges used judges' lodgings for(a) formal lunches, (b) formal dinners and (c) other formal entertaining (i) on average and (ii) in total, indicating the lodging which had (A) the greatest and (B) the least use in each of the last five years. [139228]

  Judges' lodgings staffing details for the year 1999–2000

  No

  Lodgings

  Total number of staff at lodgings

  Job description

  Staff wages(£)

  Other staff costs (£)

  1

  Birmingham

  10

  Lodgings Manager/Butler Housekeeperm Domestic x 7 Chef

  70,393.00

  282.00

  2

  Bristol

  7

  Lodgings Manager/Chef Butler Domestic x 5

  79,309.00

  2,400.00

  3

  Caernarfon

  3

  Domestic Butler Chef

  15,847.06

  4

  Cardiff

  6

  Lodgings Manager/Butler Housekeeper Domestic x 3 Chef

  80,626.00

  1,142.00

  5

  Carlisle

  2

  Housekeeper/Cook Domestic/Waitress

  2—

  2—

  6

  Chelmsford

  4

  Housekeeper/Butler Domestic/Waitress x 2 Chef

  114,033.86

  1182

  7

  Chester

  5

  Lodgings Manager/Butler Chef Domestic x 3

  65,582.56

  576.00

  8

  Exeter

  4

  Manager Deputy Manager Domestic x 2

  2—

  2—

  9

  Leeds

  10

  Lodgings Manager/Butler Chef Housekeeper Domestic x 7

  113,724.00

  1,048.00

  10

  Leicester

  4

  Steward Domestic Butler Cook

  15,985.46

  11

  Lewes

  4

  Lodgings Manager/Cook Assistant Housekeeper Domestic x 2

  56,585.00

  597.00

  252W
  Jane Kennedy
  No records are held of the number of formal lunches, dinners or other entertaining by judges at lodgings. The guidance on the use of lodgings agreed with the judiciary states that entertaining should not exceed one formal lunch party and one dinner party per week.

  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if she will list for each judges' lodging(a) the number and (b) the job descriptions of staff employed to service the lodging and serve judges staying there and (c) the annual (i) staff wages and (ii) staff costs for each lodging. [139230]

  Jane Kennedy
  The information is contained in the table.

  Because staffing numbers at the hired lodgings (and some of the permanent ones) vary depending on judicial occupation, actual staffing levels for the period 1999–2000 have been given.

  The figure for other staff costs comprises staff travel and subsistence costs incurred on business related to the lodgings.
  253W

  Judges' lodgings staffing details for the year 1999–2000

  No.

  Lodgings

  Total number of staff at lodgings

  Job description

  Staff wages (£)

  Other staff costs (£)

  12

  Lincoln

  4

  Domestic x 2 Lodgings Manager/Cook Butler

  15,057.00

  13

  Liverpool

  8

  Lodgings Manager/Chef Butler Housekeeper Domestic x 5

  76,703.62

  1,550.00

  14

  Maidstone

  5

  Lodgings Manager/Chef Assistant Housekeeper Domestic x 3

  45,528.88

  775.00

  15

  Manchester

  11

  Lodgings Manager Housekeeper Chef Domestic x 8

  129,009.80

  1,058.00

  16

  Mold

  3

  Domestic Lodgings Manager/Butler Cook

  17,576.98

  17

  Northampton

  3

  Domestic Lodgings Manager/Cook Butler

  16,170.19

  18

  Norwich

  5

  Lodgings Manager/Butler Chef Domestic x 3

  44,412.00

  411.00

  19

  Nottingham

  6

  Lodgings Manager/Butler Housekeeper Chef Domestic x 3

  71,759.00

  184.00

  20

  Oxford

  3

  Domestic Chef/Lodgings Manager Butler

  113,152.7

  1232

  21

  Plawsworth

  8

  Lodgings Manager/Butler Housekeeper Chef Domestic x 5

  103,360.91

  939.00

  22

  Plymouth

  4

  Domestic x 2 Lodgings Manager/Chef Butler

  14,211.77

  128.00

  23

  Preston

  6

  Lodgings Manager Domestic x 3 Butler Chef

  64,940.92

  655.00

  24

  Reading

  4

  Lodgings Manager Housekeeper Domestic Chef

  14,320.70

  21.00

  25

  Sheffield

  6

  Lodgings Manager Butler Chef Domestic x 3

  65,500.00

  588.00

  26

  St. Albans

  4

  Lodgings Manager Housekeeper Domestic Chef

  114,729.31

  97.00

  27

  Stafford

  6

  Housekeeper Cook Assistant Cook/Housekeeper Domestic x 2 Butler

  13,930.46

  254W 255W

  Judges' lodgings staffing details for the year 1999–2000

  No.

  Lodgings

  Total number of staff at lodgings

  Job description

  Staff wages(£)

  Other staff costs(£)

  28

  Swansea

  4

  Lodgings Manager/Chef Domestic x 2 Butler

  59,994.46

  556.00

  29

  Truro

  4

  Domestic x 2 Lodgings Manager/Chef Butler

  11,275.00

  161.00

  30

  Warwick

  4

  Chef Domestic x 2 Butler

  23,735.90

  31

  Winchester

  9

  Lodgings Manager/Cook ButlerAssistant Housekeeper/Assistant Cook Domestic x 6

  90,039.00

  648.00

  32

  Worcester

  3

  Domestic Butler Cook

  5,032.03

  87.00

  Total

  169

  1,351,550.19

  13,614.00

  1 Some staff are provided as part of the overall hire charge. No split of the cost of salaries is available.

  2 This is a hired lodgings and staff are provided as part of the overall hire charge. No split of the cost of salaries is available.

  Barristers (Remuneration)
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what assessment he has made of the effect the reduction in fees paid to barristers for crime and family work from legal aid will have on the availability of experienced barristers to carry out such work on legal aid. [139152]

  Mr. Lock
  Our proposals for legal aid fees aim to ensure that there will be a sufficient number of good quality barristers willing to undertake criminal and family work in the future. The proposals have been the subject of extensive consultation from 4 July to 12 October. The Lord Chancellor and I will consider the responses received and representations made very carefully. We would be concerned if any significant drain of experienced barristers from these areas of practice was likely to be the result of a new fee regime; and would not have submitted any proposals for consultation which we believed would have had that effect. In view of current market circumstances, the Lord Chancellor and I are not presently persuaded that there is likely to be a lack of supply of competent banisters in either area to carry out publicly funded work.

  Personal Injury Litigation
  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what steps he has taken to assess the availability of insurance cover against adverse costs orders to solicitors practising personal injury litigation. [139332]

  Mr. Lock
  There is a thriving and innovative market providing litigation insurance, not only for personal injury but to take and defend other types of claims. The figures we have from major insurers indicate that, to date, well over 100,000 after the event policies have been 256W
  purchased and that number is set to increase significantly. Measures have been in place since April 2000 to enable successful parties to litigation to recover premiums from losing opponents. This means that any compensation they receive will not be diminished. Because the costs and risks of pursuing good claims are now more affordable, there is further growth in the market for supporting insurance products.

  My Department is in regular contact with organisations involved with providing legal services, including insurers. It is important for the Government to keep an open dialogue with the providers of legal services.

PRIME MINISTER

  Special Advisers
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor), of 28 July 2000,Official Report, column 970W, if he will list the salary bands for 2000–01 for each paid special adviser, indicating the total cost to each Government department of the employment of paid special advisers in 2000–01; and if he will make a statement. [136435]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  I have been asked to reply.

  Details of individual Special Adviser salaries and costs for Special Advisers within individual departments are not given, in order to protect the privacy of the individual concerned.

  The Special Adviser pay bands for 2000–01 are as follows:

  A: £27,503 to £47,602

  B: £42,312 to £63,649

  C: £57,122 to £80,453.

CABINET OFFICE

  GM Crops
  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what steps the Government are taking to create international agreements to regulate the production of genetically modified crops in developing countries. [138811]

  Mr. Mullin
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety to the Convention on Biological Diversity, adopted last January, provides a comprehensive international legal framework enabling developing countries to regulate the safe transfer, handling and use of such crops. The Government support early implementation of the Protocol and will work with other countries to achieve this.

  Primary and Secondary Legislation (Wales)
  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office, pursuant to the answer from the Secretary of State for Wales of 31 October 2000,Official Report, column 359W, what the role of her Department is in
  258W
  co-ordinating the Government's approach in formulating primary legislation according subordinate legislative powers to the National Assembly for Wales. [139352]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  The Cabinet Office Constitution Secretariat has produced a series of Devolution Guidance Notes, to assist Government Departments with aspects of devolution. These guidance notes have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses and made available on the Cabinet Office website.

  As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales said in his answer of 31 October 2000, Official Report, column 359W, a Guidance Note on Post Devolution Primary Legislation Affecting Wales is being prepared. I expect this note to be published soon.

  Farming
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what the cost was of conducting the Better Regulation Task Force's inquiry into environmental regulations and farmers. [139317]

  Mr. Stringer
  The cost of conducting the Better Regulation Task Force review of environmental regulations and farmers is just over £29,000.

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

Age Discrimination in the Civil Service
Lord Janner of Braunstone Lord Janner of Braunstone asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will take action to remove rules within the Civil Service which discriminate on grounds of age, and in particular the requirement to retire at the age of 60.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord Falconer of Thoroton): My Lords, it is government policy that there should be no unfair discrimination in the Civil Service on the basis of age. Best practice to remove any discrimination on the grounds of age in recruitment, training and promotion is contained in my department's guidance to departments and agencies on age diversity.
Departments and agencies are free to set the normal retirement age for their own staff outside the senior Civil Service. This can be above 60. In the light of the Winning the Generation Game report by the Performance and Innovation Unit, the Cabinet Office is currently considering with departments and agencies changes in their policy on normal retirement age, as recommended in the report, and will consider the implications of extending any changes to the senior ranks of the Civil Service.
Lord Janner of Braunstone: My Lords, I thank my noble and learned friend for that Answer, particularly for the first signs of change in the Civil Service. Surely, it is by definition a form of unfair discrimination to force people into retirement at the age of 60 and the Civil Service above all should not engage in it. I can see no reason why any government department should be permitted to impose a form of institutionalised ageism of the worst kind.
Will my noble friend accept that, if it applied to people in this House, whether for their work here or elsewhere, many of us, including my noble friend Lord Winston, would be driven out of work at just the age when we are becoming mature and ready to serve society at our best?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I do not know when my noble friend Lord Winston will be driven out of work but I agree that in many cases the age of 60 is the wrong age to require people to retire. The effect of the report of the Performance and Innovation Unit, Winning the Generation Game, was that all government departments are required to see whether they can extend the retirement age. They are
808
in the process of doing so and by 30th September 2001 they must come back to the Cabinet Office with a case for not extending it to the age of 65.
Lord Winston: My Lords, is my noble and learned friend aware that I can still get to my feet? A serious issue exists because population profiles of the United Kingdom show that within the next decade, and certainly this century, approximately 1 per cent of the population will be over 100 years old. Many people in the older age group will be increasingly fit. Moreover, if the existing retirement age limit continues, less than 40 per cent of the population will be earning. Is not there a clear need to re-evaluate the use of older people in our society as working members of that society?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I am pleased to see that my noble friend is still able to get to his feet! I agree entirely with what he said. Far too many people lose the opportunity both to fulfil themselves and to give to society by being forced out of work at much too young an age. We need to look fundamentally at the way in which people can be more engaged in work and make other contributions in the years after 60.
Lord Lipsey: My Lords, will my noble and learned friend agree that there is at least the consolation that many senior civil servants who retire at 60 undertake useful work after retirement, including many in this House? Will he also agree that there exists within the senior Civil Service a dilemma that unless the older ones go the younger ones will not stay because they are not paid much and the prospect of promotion is the one thing which keeps many of them on?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I agree that many senior civil servants who retire at the age of 60 have many opportunities to work in other walks of life in both the public service and the private sector. I also agree that the retirement age must be examined in terms of encouraging younger people to begin careers in the Civil Service. However, an appropriate balance must be struck.
Lord Davies of Coity: My Lords, will my noble and learned friend add to the answer he gave to a previous question? Will he agree that the issue relates not only to career prospects but also to finding employment for youngsters who enter the job market after leaving school? If there is no retirement age somewhere along the line, will there not be higher unemployment in the younger age group?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, that is the point which was made in a different form by my noble friend Lord Lipsey. A balance must be struck between, on the one hand, ensuring that people have an opportunity to fulfil themselves after age 60 but, on the

809
other, ensuring that there are gaps enabling younger people to take jobs and to be promoted when they have them.
Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords, will the Minister accept that as regards the Armed Forces a retirement age of 60 and above may well be wrong and that we do not want to end up with a "Dad's Army"?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I stray with diffidence into the case of the Armed Forces. I can see the problem with a "Dad's Army" but, as the noble and gallant Lord proves, many able and gallant soldiers have much to contribute after 60.
Earl Jellicoe: My Lords, some 30 years ago when I was—I believe—in day-to-day charge of the Civil Service I was very worried by the fact that those who reached the age of 60—for example, ambassadors who had just got to terms with the countries to which they had been appointed—had to leave the service. Is the noble and learned Lord aware that I am very glad to hear that consideration is to be given to the introduction of flexibility into the present arrangements?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I am grateful for the noble Earl's support for the proposal. The fact that the noble Earl was head of the Civil Service 30 years ago indicates how many useful years he had beyond that post.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, as to flexibility, will reconsideration of this matter include the possibility of part-time employment? Does the Minister agree that a considerable number of people with careers in the Civil Service, engineering and elsewhere have much to contribute but may not want to do it as a full-time occupation? Does the noble and learned Lord agree that if it was part-time work it would not stand in the way of younger people who thrust forward?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, it is right that that very important point should also be considered. Obviously, a balance must be struck between the opportunities for part-time work and the creation of opportunities for people as they pursue their careers.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, does the Minister agree that another balance to be struck is between the worthy aim of individuals to have different careers, with the avoidance of logjams in the promotion of young people, and the question of pensions and the funding thereof? Does the noble and learned Lord agree that we must be extremely careful about what rabbits we allow to run here because the implications for pensions, particularly in the Civil Service, are horrendous?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the retirement age is the age for which pension funds make
810
appropriate funding. However, pension entitlement and the extent to which a person should be allowed to continue to work may be two different matters.
Viscount Simon: My Lords, does my noble and learned friend agree that a retirement age well before 60 should be encouraged for those involved in criminal acts?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I believe that that very much depends on the criminal act.

World Poverty Reduction Targets
2.45 p.m.
The Earl of Sandwich The Earl of Sandwich asked Her Majesty's Government:
How far they have succeeded in meeting their 1997 target of halving the proportion (23 per cent in 1995) of the world population living in extreme poverty by 2015.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, the target to halve the proportion of people who live in extreme poverty by 2015 is one of seven that were agreed by the international community at the series of United Nations' global conferences held in the past decade and now form the centrepiece of the international development effort. Progress is measured from 1990 when 29 per cent of people in developing countries lived in extreme poverty.
The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Does the noble Baroness agree that the international development targets which were set five years ago in Beijing and Copenhagen are now beginning to look unrealistic, given that the poverty reduction strategies in those countries are at a very early stage? Does the noble Baroness agree that it would be safer to set up intermediate development targets every five years to enable those countries effectively to monitor and evaluate their progress?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I do not agree with the noble Earl that the targets are unrealistic. Although the targets are difficult, they are achievable if there is strong political will and commitment behind them. The international development targets are important because they are a commitment by all the members of the UN. The noble Earl asked specifically about the setting of intermediate targets. Individual countries, through their poverty reduction strategies, set intermediate targets. If countries write poverty reduction strategies, the inclusion of long-term, medium-term and intermediate-term targets which they intend to reach at specific points is compulsory. Both of those matters are important. Individual countries have the opportunity to set intermediate targets, but international development targets are an international effort.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, does the Minister agree that some of the countries in sub-Saharan Africa are

811
going backwards at the moment? Considering that the targets for Africa are not being met, will there be a reassessment of viable targets in Geneva in June? In asking that question, I recognise the good work that DfID has done over the past five years.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, we are experiencing difficulty in meeting the targets in sub-Saharan Africa for a number of reasons, including the scale and spread of HIV/AIDS and the degree of conflict in many of those countries. But it is important to recognise that there are differences between countries in sub-Saharan Africa. For example, Nigeria and South Africa have a very good record in economic growth. Therefore, we should not be pessimistic about the region as a whole. As for a reassessment of our ability to meet the targets in sub-Saharan Africa, I repeat my response to the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich. As a global community it is important to have a commitment to a set of international targets. How we apply those targets in individual countries will depend partly on the degree of commitment by those countries to putting in place pro-poor development policies. We do not want to roll back from the commitment to those targets, but clearly when countries put in place their poverty reduction strategies we shall look at what they can realistically achieve.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, we all agree that one of the main routes towards the successful eradication of world poverty is through the education of adolescents, especially young girls. Can the Minister tell the House what additional plans Her Majesty's Government have prepared to target female education and healthcare? Does DfID have any links with important charities in this field, such as the International Women's Health Coalition and AMR EF?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I am in total agreement with the noble Baroness that it is important to invest in education. It has been shown that such investment is one of the most important determinants in meeting all the other targets, including health and poverty targets, because of what happens to families where, for example, mothers and daughters have been educated. In the past three years we have committed £400 million to support primary education programmes, all with a strong focus on gender equality. The noble Baroness will be aware that of the nearly 900 million people across the world who are illiterate 600 million are women. So the education targets are very important indeed.
The noble Baroness asked about health. Infant and under-five mortality rates fell by more than half between 1960 and 1990. But progress has slowed during the 1990s. In most regions, particularly sub-Saharan Africa, which we have already mentioned, a big effort will be needed to meet the targets.
812
The noble Baroness asked also about AMREF and one other organisation. We are in touch with AMREF. I had a meeting with AMREF relatively recently. We are in touch with a number of NGOs which are working in this area.
Lord Tomlinson: My Lords, in pursuit of the objective of poverty reduction, will the Minister ensure that European Commissioner Lamy's proposals in the "Everything but Arms" initiative do not prejudice either Article 12 of the Cotonou agreement, which provides for prior consultation with the African, Caribbean and Pacific countries if their interests are detrimentally affected, or the legal status of the sugar protocol or the sugar regime proposals which, inter alia, provide for the renegotiation of the special preferential sugar agreement? Either of those will have a serious effect on Caribbean producers. It would be wrong to pursue poverty reduction in some parts of the world at the expense of creating poverty in others.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, my noble friend will be aware that we worked extremely hard in the successor to the Lomé Convention to protect the interests of Caribbean producers. We shall continue so to do. In principle, we support "Everything but Arms" and we are willing to work with the European Commission to help Caribbean industries adjust. We want to look at the impact of "Everything but Arms" on Caribbean countries. However, I reiterate to my noble friend that we want to protect the interests of Caribbean producers.
Lord Bridges: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the noble Baroness a question which has puzzled me for some time. For so long as we define poverty as a percentage of GNP, how can we hope to arrive at its abolition?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, it is important that we recognise that poverty reduction is not just about aid to developing countries; it is about development and in particular looking at the capacity of developing countries to improve economically. Therefore, part of our strategy relies on seeking to work with business and with other partners to achieve economic prosperity and growth in developing countries.

Speech and Language Therapists
2.53 p.m.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester Lord Faulkner of Worcester asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the levels of recruitment and retention of speech and language therapists are satisfactory.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): My Lords, the number of qualified speech and language therapists increased by 310 between September 1997 and September 1999. The NHS plan will see a further 6,500 therapists and other health professionals by

813
2004. The department's recruitment and retention strategy embraces this important and valued group of staff.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. Is he aware that there is still a serious shortage of therapists? As a result, waiting lists are long and vulnerable children are not getting the assessments and treatment that they need. Is he satisfied that the problems which were identified in the study carried out by the Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists last year of poor morale, low pay and poor recognition have been addressed and that, therefore, speech and language therapists can expect the increase in recruitment to which my noble friend referred and can continue to perform their absolutely invaluable role in helping children overcome their communication difficulties?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I certainly share my noble friend's view of the importance of speech therapists. I also acknowledge, as I did in my main Answer, that we need to see further increases in the number of speech and language therapists employed within the National Health Service. We have made good progress in the past two years; and we shall be looking at the number of training places that are available as one way in which to increase the numbers of therapists in the long term.
My noble friend referred to morale. In common with other groups of non-pay review body staff, speech and language therapists have benefited from an above inflation pay increase this year. Additionally, a new pay and grading structure was introduced on 1st April 2000. This importantly extended the existing pay spine for speech therapists in line with that of clinical psychologists. That will increase the pay availability for senior speech and language therapists by around £20,000.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I welcome what the Minister said on cases of equal value and the settlement of those cases earlier in the year. One of the reasons for problems with the morale of speech and language therapists referred to in the survey mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, is the constant change in reorganisation of the National Health Service. How will the Government's new proposals on regulation of the professions allied to medicine improve that? Surely, they will only compound that problem.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I do not agree with that but over the past 20 years the various managerial changes have adversely impacted on many of the professions allied and supplementary to medicine. Part of our strategy in relation to those professions is to ensure that at local level their views, concerns and management are given sufficient attention by the boards of NHS trusts.
But so far as concerns regulation, what is proposed in the consultation paper that we are considering will enhance the whole regulatory process for this and
814
other similar professions. It will speed up disciplinary processes and enhance public confidence. Through that I believe new confidence will be established among the professions.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, since speech therapists were accepted as a profession supplementary to medicine, does the noble Lord agree that there has been an increasing demand for them and never enough of them, particularly because they can perform important functions, for example, when someone has a sudden paralysing stroke and all means of communication come to an end?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I do not disagree at all with what the noble Lord has said. There is no doubt that communication is vital to everyone's lives in this country. Speech and language therapists work with people of all ages, not just children. They have a valuable role to play. I am sure that in the future we will need even more speech therapists than we have at the moment. That is why, alongside a review of the training places, we shall be working with the appropriate professional body to examine our future requirements to make sure that the NHS is in a position to take advantage of the profession.
Lord Rix: My Lords, is the Minister aware of the extreme difficulty faced by adults, as opposed to children, with a learning disability in accessing the services of people concerned with speech therapy? If the Minister is so aware, can he suggest solution to the problem?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I am well aware of the issues that are being faced and of the waiting that some members of the public undergo in order to access speech and language therapists. We are making progress. We have seen an increase in the numbers of therapists employed in the past two years. We shall be increasing the number of training places. Most importantly, we have commissioned a labour market analysis of speech and language therapists. The result of that project, which is expected next spring, will be used to inform recommendations on future training places. Clearly, that takes time. I want to ensure that in the meantime we do everything we can to recruit more people back into the profession.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I declare an interest as someone who suffered a stroke and has had invaluable help from a speech therapist. While the Government certainly deserve a great deal of praise for what they have done, does my noble friend agree that there is a housing problem for NHS staff in London and the South East? What steps are the Government taking to deal with that problem?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right. The long-term vacancies for speech therapists in London are 5.9 per cent compared with the English average of 3.4 per cent. We are exercised in relation to the facilitation of affordable

815
accommodation for NHS staff in London. We have appointed Mr John Yates to help us develop schemes to arrange affordable accommodation for such staff. Those will include speech therapists.

NHS Plan
3.1 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour Baroness Carnegy of Lour asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their reaction to the statement by the Chairman of the British Medical Association that the National Health Service Plan is not deliverable in the timescale envisaged.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, we are determined to ensure that the NHS Plan represents a step-change for the health service that is both affordable and deliverable. I am confident that the plan can and will be delivered within the set timescales.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, it has been suggested that what the British Medical Association has been saying is simply a spin designed to affect the pay review for doctors which is presently under way. Can 1he Minister confirm that, far from that being the case, the BMA gave detailed views as to its anxieties on the day the plan was announced—at the end of July—and that since then other bodies have confirmed very much the same view? I refer to the Royal College of General Practitioners, the National Health Service Alliance and the National Association of Primary Care. All those bodies have detailed anxieties. Will the Government pay attention to the views of general practitioners?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I suppose it depends on which Dr Bogle we are listening to. Is it the Dr Bogle to whom the noble Baroness refers, or is it the Dr Bogle who said on 7th September 2000:
"Overall, the NHS plan is an exceedingly good document. It shows a desire from Government, patients and those working in the health service to achieve the best health service in the world"?
That was a fairly strong commendation of the NHS plan. Of course we will listen to what organisations such as the BMA have to say to us, but we are confident that the figures in the NHS Plan are robust. We see primary care as an integral part of the development of the plan. I am confident that the targets we have set of 2,000 extra GPs by 2004 will be met.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, is not one of the ways of relieving pressure on GPs to allow much more nurse prescribing in primary care? The Government issued a paper in August but consultation is still going on. At a time when the Government are facing demands for more GPs, why are the Government dragging their heels in the area of nurse prescribing?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the Government are certainly not dragging their heels. Nurse prescribing has proved to be very important indeed. We are keen to develop it as soon as we can. I can assure the noble Lord that we will be bringing our conclusions to the House as soon as we possibly can.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I heard what the Minister said about 2,000 extra GPs by 2004. Does he agree that that still puts us in the third division of world health systems? If he so wishes, I can refer to Greece, Germany and France. How does the noble Lord equate the figure of an extra 2,000 GPs with the plan's idea of a patient being able to see his GP within 48 hours, which I understand the BMA. says is totally unrealistic?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I do not agree with the noble Baroness. She may be referring to the number of doctors employed in each healthcare system. If she is, I would certainly acknowledge that this country has traditionally employed fewer doctors than many other healthcare systems. That is one of the reasons why we are committed to increasing the number of GPs and hospital consultants. But I would also say that in this country we have a very good record of using other staff, such as nurses, to do work that might be done in other healthcare systems by doctors. The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, has already referred to the potential of nurse prescribing.
The noble Baroness referred to the 48-hour limit. Perhaps I may quote from Dr Adrian Attard, whose practice is participating in a primary care collaborative. The practice has cut its waiting times from five to six days to the Government's target time of 48 hours. Dr Attard said:
"We are not doing any extra surgeries and we are not working harder than before, we are just working in a different way".
Many of the ways in which we can achieve the 48-hour limit will be by GPs working more effectively.
Lord Winston: My Lords, can my noble friend confirm that a number of senior members of the British Medical Association, having read the national plan, signed an endorsement of it before it was published, as did many major leaders in the healthcare professions? Does he not agree that the great majority of the medical professions welcome the national plan and intend to work with it?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, there is no doubt about that. The 150 or so people who were involved in writing the NHS plan included many doctors. Many distinguished doctors signed up to the core values at the beginning of the NHS Plan. I can do no better than to quote from The Times, which is always to be believed in these matters. It quoted Sir George Alberti, President of the Royal College of Physicians, who urged Dr Bogle on 21st November to "stop belly-aching" and start innovating.

Business
Lord Carter: My Lords, after the Third Reading of the Freedom of Information Bill, my noble friend Lady Symons of Vernham Dean will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement being made in another place on European defence co-operation.

Freedom of Information Bill
3.7 p.m.
Read a third time.
Clause 2 [Effect of the exemptions in Part II]:
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, leave out line 31.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, if it does not trouble the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, too much, I should like further to shorten our proceedings today by speaking not only to Amendment No. 1 but also to Amendment No. 7. My point on the two amendments is the same.
The Bill will come into force in 2005. That is also the year when we are promised that we will have full electronic government. Other Bills that have been before us this Session—notably those coming out of the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions—have made full provision for the coming electronic nature of government and of government information. The Bill, which is all about information, still does not.
In these two amendments I offer two ways in which the Government can remedy that defect. Amendment No. 1 removes the inability of an applicant to receive information in electronic form if it is information which is already published in some other form—in other words, just because some ancient statute prescribes that information should be published in writing, and that is what the public authority does, there will be no right to receive it in electronic form. The other way is to put something in the statement of good practice to make it clear that, by the time the Bill comes into force, we would expect information generally to be made available in electronic form.
The Government promise a great deal in this area; indeed, they have always done so. However, as the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, will confirm, they still do not send Answers to my Parliamentary Questions by e-mail. I hope that, one day, the Government will get around to fulfilling the promises they have made. At the very least, they ought to be consistent in their promises. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I have a great deal of sympathy with the amendments tabled by my noble friend, who certainly knows a thing or two more than I do about e-mail, the Internet and so forth. He is quite right to pursue this issue. Furthermore, he is right to point out that we have not seen a great deal of joined-up thinking across government on this. For example, when we debated yesterday the Political
818
Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill, we exposed the fact that electoral registers will not be available in a unified form on e-mail for the commencement of the Bill next year, even though they form an important part of how the provisions of the Bill are to operate. That provides another example of the point that my noble friend seeks to make here.
If the Government are serious about moving into the e-commerce age—we were told constantly that they were serious when we dealt with the Electronic Communications Bill covering e-commerce—they must ensure that they themselves have entered the electronic age.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, perhaps I may deal first with Amendment No. 7, which refers specifically to communication by "electronic means". The noble Lord quite fairly indicated that he covered this matter at earlier stages of our deliberations on the Bill. We responded to his points and I fear that my answer today may be quite similar to previous responses that he has received.
Amendment No. 7 deals with the code of practice. The code will provide guidance to public authorities to meet their obligations under Part I of the Bill. Clause 11 already puts clear duties on authorities to comply, as far as is reasonably practicable, with the applicant's expressed preference for communication. This will include the provision of information by electronic means. Thus there is no need to include any specific reference to the provision of information by electronic means so far as concerns the method of response to requests for information.
It is worth remembering that a wide range of public authorities will be required to comply with the provisions of the Bill. The figure of 50,000 such public authorities was given on a previous occasion. Some of those bodies will be very small indeed, while some may be comparatively poorly resourced as regards information technology. It would be inappropriate to make electronic or any other means of communication a recommended method for communicating information under the terms of the Bill. The Freedom of Information Bill is extremely important, but for many of those 50,000 public authorities, the delivery of their mainstream activities will be even more important.
Each authority must do what is reasonably practicable, taking into account its individual circumstances. It may be that the noble Lord has in mind the importance of encouraging the electronic information age. Indeed, he has made that specific point clear. That is, of course, a matter which is close to the Government's heart, as the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, pointed out. Furthermore, I believe that we hold a commendable record in the area. As the noble Lord is no doubt aware, Clause 19 relates to publication schemes that will provide the vehicles by which proactive disclosure is required. Publication schemes must specify the manner in which information to be made available proactively by the authority is to be published. The information commissioner must approve such schemes. Therefore the means by which

819
authorities make information available in accordance with the publication schemes is a matter over which the commissioner will have direct control.
If the information commissioner thinks that an authority is not making appropriate use of electronic communication in a given set of circumstances, she can require the authority to include the necessary provisions in its scheme. That would seem to be the most appropriate way to ensure that the intention behind Amendment No. 7 is met. I hope that the noble Lord will find this response to be of assistance as regards Amendment No. 7. Although the means may be different from that which he has proposed, the intentions are similar.
Amendment No. 1 seeks, in effect, to remove Clause 21 from the absolute exemptions. This clause refers to information that is already available through other means. The Bill concerns freedom of information. If that information is already available by other means, and the question of whether such information has been made readily available is a point on which the information commissioner can rule, then there is no need to address it under the terms of Clause 2. For that reason, I believe that it would be inappropriate to set down anything other than an absolute exemption for Clause 21.
I hope that my remarks have been useful to the noble Lord and that now he will feel able to withdraw Amendment No. 1 and not move Amendment No. 7.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I believe that that is the best response that I am going to get here. I draw a little comfort from the point made by the noble and learned Lord as regards the powers of the information commissioner. However, I do not draw much comfort at all from his proposition that, in 2005, a number of public authorities will still be poorly resourced as regards information technology. His noble friend mentioned that some doctors would still not be using computers by that year. I do not know of a school which does not already have 2,000 computers in place. Similarly, I do not know of a doctor who is not well advanced in the use of information technology, employing it increasingly for medical diagnosis, checking on the side-effects of pills and so forth. I believe that the noble and learned Lord may be a little out of date on the capabilities of public authorities—or at least I hope that he is.
If the noble and learned Lord is truly suggesting that in 2005 we shall still have public authorities that are not well provided for in information technology, would he let me know which authorities are so affected? Perhaps I might then have a go at doing something about the situation. Otherwise, I shall assume that the noble and learned Lord is simply less well informed than is usually the case.
I shall withdraw the amendments. I hope that, in this instance, the Government will live up to their fine words. With that hope, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment..
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.15 p.m..
Clause 15 [Special provisions relating to public records transferred to Public Record Office, etc.]:
Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 9, line 10, after ("is") insert ("expressed to be").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 2, perhaps I may speak also to Amendment No. 8. These are technical amendments, consequential on amendments tabled on Report by the noble Lords, Lord McNally, Lord Lester of Herne Hill and Lord Goodhart, to which noble Lords agreed. They help to clarify the relationship between Clause 2 and those provisions in Part II which deal with the duty to confirm or deny that the requested information is held. I beg o move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 35 [Formulation of government policy, etc.
Baroness Whitaker Baroness Whitaker moved Amendment No.3:
Page 21, line 4, at end insert—
("() Information consisting of—

(a) scientific, medical or technical data,

(b) the analysis of such data, or

(c) the opinion of a scientific, medical or technical expert as to the interpretation or significance of such data or analysis,

is not exempt by virtue of subsection (1)(a) or section 36(2)(b) or (c).").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in speaking to Amendment No. 3, I should say, first, that the Bill is now much improved. When one works through the way in which the Bill is to operate, there is a kind of groundswell towards public access to the factual basis of decisions, which is capable of being translated into the culture of change which my noble and learned friend presaged earlier. However, this process remains tortuous. It is not easy for the citizen to follow and particular concerns have been expressed about areas such as scientific facts and their analysis, on which can turn life and death.
This amendment would exclude scientific data, analysis and opinions from the scope of Clause 35(1)(a), the government policy formulation exemption clause, along with the related exemptions in Clause 36. This amendment is more limited in its scope than previous amendments tabled at earlier stages. It applies only to factual information which is scientific, medical or technical. However, it goes beyond the data themselves. It applies to data, the analysis of data and expert opinion on the interpretation or significance of the data or analysis. In effect, those are the three ingredients that go into a published scientific paper. Government scientists may also offer advice on the policy that should be adopted in the light of findings. The amendment does not extend to that advice. It is limited to scientific opinion on the significance of the data.
Thus, a government scientist looking at data on the outbreak of BSE might recognise that the disease was continuing to strike, despite the fact that controls had been introduced. He might suggest that the

821
implication was either that the controls were not being properly applied or that the disease was being transmitted in a previously unsuspected manner. All those implications would be open to disclosure as a result of this amendment.
I think, but would be relieved to be corrected, that the so-called "harm test"—or, as the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, put it, a "prejudice test in all but name"—as now achieved in the Bill, would not necessarily bite on a particular document—for example, our scientists' paper—if the Government believed that there was a public interest in ensuring that all the ingredients of their internal deliberations remained confidential to allow for the free exchange of views. In the same way, a report on vaccine damage which dealt only with the possible risks of the vaccine to individuals and not with the aggregate benefits might also fall into this category.
The amendment reflects the concerns expressed by the national Consumers' Association and the Freedom of Information Campaign. Without it, can my noble and learned friend persuade us that there will be a true right to the scientific, technical and medical data analysis and interpretation on which turn such crucial political decisions?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, Amendment No. 4 in this group stands in my name. The amendment seeks to write into the Freedom of Information Bill words which are contained in the code but which the Government have omitted from the Bill. There is a lot to be said for doing our best to make sure that the Bill is at least as good as the code. This is one respect out of several, I am sad to say, where the Bill falls short of what is contained in the current code.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, has been kind enough to write to me twice on this subject. In his latest letter he has clearly set out how he sees the difference between fact and analysis. I hope that the noble and learned Lord will not object if I quote from the letter.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: No.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, the letter states:
At one extreme, analysis may be no more than separating a fact into its component parts, tabling and perhaps statistically comparing them. Where such an exercise does not, for example, require any assessment of the relative weight or merit of the information, it would in my view be difficult for a public authority to make the case that such analysis should be withheld…
"At the other extreme, the analysis of facts will require a public authority to determine or attribute a weight to the whole, or one or more component parts, to compare and contrast the merit of one part relative to another or to speculate on assumptions which may underlie or be evidenced by any statistical comparison. In such a case, it seems to me that the 'analysis' becomes much less dispassionate and is closer to opinion than fact".
I read that to say that if the noble and learned Lord were presented with a scientific paper, he would fillet it. He would leave in the tables, but anything which constituted the application of a lifetime's accumulated expertise to those facts would be eliminated. It would
822
be opinion and therefore would not be freely available to the public. That is a terrible state of affairs. It would certainly have caused a great deal of difficulty if this had been the practice when we were faced with BSE and we were hoping that this new Bill would allow us to avoid its main consequences.
It is quite clear that the wording of the code encompasses the idea that the analysis of factual information by someone who is equipped to do so, rather than by someone providing mere speculation, is an integral part of that information being made understandable to the general public. If we have only a table of the results of some medical experiment and we are asked, as members of the public, to draw conclusions from it, we are set at a great disadvantage. We are deprived of the expertise of researchers, perhaps of the Chief Medical Officer or of someone who understands what is going on. That is not the way in which information should be treated and viewed.
I hope that the noble and learned Lord will reconsider this issue. At an earlier stage he described statistical information by sending me extracts from papers containing statistics. The extracts did indeed contain statistics, but they also contained a good deal of building on those statistics and drawing conclusions from them. Those statistics related to crime in a particular area of Britain and were being put forward to support a case for CCTV cameras in the area. Statistics are fine, but unless the arguments about what has been achieved elsewhere with CCTV cameras, the relevant statistics in other parts of the country and the comparisons and conclusions to be drawn from that are set out, you are left with a meaningless collection of data. People are then at a great disadvantage in understanding what the Government are at and in trying to reach the right conclusions, which is one of the underlying purposes of the legislation—at least, I believe it to be one of the underlying purposes of this legislation.
I hope that even at this late stage the noble and learned Lord will reconsider and accept either the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, which is admirably succinct, clear and limited in its objectives, or my more general call for this matter to be put back onto the basis which exists in the code at the moment. That basis will not exist unless we make some amendment to this particular aspect of the Bill.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, my noble friend Lady Whitaker and the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, have focused our minds on the dangers of exempting from the right to disclosure a wide category of information without differentiating between the various kinds of information and the various situations in which the question may arise. Information relating to,
"the formulation or development of government policy"—
the words of the Bill—may concern a problem which falls to be addressed, what was said about it by someone, who provided the information, what statistics exist or how they may be analysed. The prejudice, if any, occasioned from disclosure of those various kinds of information in those various kinds of circumstances will be very different.

823
The prejudice arising from disclosing to a totally unsuspecting public the first intimation that there may have been an outbreak of infected beef will be quite different from disclosing whether the number of cases is increasing or decreasing. If it is argued that it does not matter because everything is to be subjected to the balance of the public interest test in Clause 2, I hope that my noble and learned friend and the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart—both of whom have deployed that argument in previous debates—will forgive me if I say that that may require rather careful scrutiny.
Leaving aside the ministerial override in Clause 52—which we will debate later, but which, in any event, dulls the edge of that argument—I believe that it runs together a number of issues which should be considered separately. First, if there is no realistic danger that the disclosure of a particular category or sub-category of information would cause harm, then it ought not be in an exemption at all. The question of harm tests would not then arise and there would be no need for a balancing assessment under Clause 2. If there is a potential danger that its disclosure might cause harm, it should be subjected to a harm test. I do not believe that that is identical to the balancing of public interest in Clause 2.
The argument of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, in particular, appears to be—I hope I paraphrase him correctly—that it does not matter whether there is a prejudice test in a specific clause defining an exempted category because, even if the information in question falls within the exemption, the balancing of public interest is identical with the prejudice test. I wonder whether his rather cheerful optimism is justified.
Let us suppose that, in applying the public interest test, the Government were to argue, "We agree that there is no specific harm which would be occasioned by disclosing this particular information, but we believe that there is a public interest in maintaining the integrity of this whole category of information. It would do no harm to disclose the results of the tests conducted on this beef herd by this veterinary surgeon, but it might inhibit vets from passing on to the Government the results of their tests on other occasions".
The public interest test may well exclude from the right to disclosure information the disclosure of which would cause no specific harm because, it may be said, there is a public interest in maintaining the principle. That is not an academic supposition; it is an argument that has been used by Ministers in the course of our debates on the Bill.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for giving way. He is right. The public interest test could result in a decision against disclosure on the grounds, not of the consequences immediately following the disclosure of the particular facts of that case, but from the wider harm that might be done, for instance, by making it harder to obtain information in subsequent cases.
824
The flaw in the noble and learned Lord's argument is that that point could equally be raised where there is a prejudice test. The prejudice does not have to be absolutely specific to the information the disclosure of which is sought; it could apply also to a wider harm that would be caused consequentially on disclosure of the particular facts of that case.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, it might be. If I were drafting the Bill afresh—which, ipso facto, I shall not be allowed to do—I should want to make the distinction between those two tests very much clearer. But the psychology—the way in which someone's mind would work in addressing those two tests—might be very different. I shall argue that it might be too easy to introduce the test about maintaining the integrity of the whole category.
Perhaps I may give two instances where that has been cited by Ministers in the course of debates. Addressing this question in Committee in another place, my honourable friend David Lock, said:
"It is generally acknowledged that the Government must have time and space to evaluate policy options. That view is shared by all Committee members. The premature disclosure of information in those areas can only hamper, and in some—perhaps even most—instances, prejudice the effective conduct of public affairs. It follows that, for a significant proportion of the information falling into that category, disclosure will never be justifiable, even under a harm test … certain categories of information will always prejudice the effective conduct of public affairs".—[Official Report, Commons, Standing Committee B: 27/1/00; col. 293.]
On 24th October, my noble and learned friend said that the amendment then under discussion,
"would mean that the difficult questions, the uncomfortable options and unthinkable scenarios would not be debated as frequently or as clearly. Governance would suffer.That is why a class exemption rather than a harm test is the right way to achieve a balance for good and open government".
He went on to say:
"Cabinet papers and minutes would always be likely to prejudice the effective conduct of public affairs".—[Official Report, 24/10/00; cols. 282–3.]
Even where there is to be a public interest test, the category exemption is not the same as the harm test. That is a point of view, but it is certainly not the same as arguing that because of Clause 2 we already have a harm test.
It is too easy for a government or a public authority to decide that disclosing information in a particular category is always against the public interest. Some of us believe that the Government should have to undergo the discipline of actually directing their mind to the harm that would result from the disclosure of the particular information in question; or at least, where they seek to exclude by category, that the definition of that category should be subject to careful scrutiny, as my noble friend seeks to bring about.
What is certain is that, for that reason, a balancing of public interest is not a complete substitute for a harm test. That was the argument of my noble and learned friend himself. The object of the amendment is to compel Ministers and public authorities to focus their minds on the question of whether disclosure would occasion a specific form of harm. To argue that

825
that exercise is superfluous because there is always a balancing of public interest at the end of the course is to circumvent the whole scheme of the Bill. If that were the whole test, we should not have needed to trouble with all the clauses defining the exemptions.
If the Bill is to achieve its objective, a request for information should be considered in three stages: first, does it fall within a category of information which has a potential for causing harm—we should define the category with some care; secondly—and only if it does—is there some specific harm which may be
caused in this particular instance; if so, thirdly—and
only then—where does the balance of public interest
lie? My noble friend's amendment is directed to the first of those questions. It is on that question that the debate should focus.
Perhaps I may seize this opportunity—since it will be my last opportunity in the course of our debates—to thank my noble and learned friend for the care with which he has addressed our arguments throughout and for his unfailing courtesy.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I apologise to the House for the fact that, for reasons given by the Select Committee on Science and Technology, air travel and health, I shall be even more difficult to listen to than normal. If at some point I choke, the House will realise that that is not on argument, but for other reasons!
I should like to try to explain, for the last time I am sure, why I believe that the Bill as it stands now provides a proper constitutional and legal framework for balancing the competing public interests. My starting-point is Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which guarantees the right to free speech, subject to necessary exceptions.
Article 10 does not segment information and ideas into little categories. What it does is to treat all information and ideas as being the subject matter of the right to freedom of communication and the receipt of information and ideas. It then subjects that right to necessary exceptions. Those exceptions are scrutinised carefully as exceptions to a fundamental right, using the well-known principles of proportionality.
The other relevant convention right in Article 8 is to personal privacy, which is one of the exceptions that has to be balanced against free speech. Again, it does not seek to segment the subject; it balances these two fundamental rights using proportionality. So if we had no freedom of information Bill but simply the European Convention on Human Rights as our framework, the information commissioner/the Data Protection Commissioner, being the same person, would be balancing free speech on the one hand covering information and ideas against personal privacy on the other.
But the great weakness of Article 10 as a touchstone is that it has not been interpreted by the European Court of Human Rights yet as giving a general right of access to official information. So, although it applies to the balance between free speech and a fair trial, free
826
speech and copyright, or free speech and official secrecy, it does not guarantee a positive right of the public to government information.
One of the most important things that we have achieved in this House in relation to the Bill is that we have repaired the weakness in Article 10, effectively by writing in to Article 10 a right of public access to information and ideas—not subject to particular categories, but subject only to necessary exceptions. There are two kinds of exceptions: those that are absolute, where there is no balancing, and those that are qualified; for example, those that we are considering at present under Clause 35, which are not absolute but are subject to the public interest test.
It will not, ultimately, be for the Minister, for myself, for the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell, or, indeed, for the Campaign for Freedom of Information to decide what Clause 2 means: it will be a matter for the information commissioner and, in the end, for the courts. I find it inconceivable that the information commissioner and the courts will apply a different standard to the freedom of information legislation from that to be applied to the Data Protection Act, which is the other side of the coin. It is possible that the Minister will say, as the Home Office will probably require him to say, that he does not necessarily accept everything that I say—I understand why he will say that. Thank heavens it will not be left to him, the Home Office or me to decide the matter. It will be a question for the judges to decide.
I find it inconceivable that the proportionality principle will not apply. There is no way in which that test is other than a harm test—a substantial harm or substantial prejudice test. What are the information commissioner and the courts doing when they weigh the right of access to government information against necessary exceptions? They are weighing whether there is a sufficiently substantial prejudice or harm to another facet of the public interest to justify, on an objective basis, curtailing the right of public access to information.
The noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, and the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, both of whom deserve our gratitude for raising such issues in these amendments, are seeking to carve out as specially not capable of being qualified and balanced, information or analysis of particular kinds. I have great sympathy with what they seek to do. In the kind of cases covered by these amendments, I have no doubt that the Government would have a particularly hard time in justifying the withholding of the information for the reasons that they have given—and which I am sure other Members of the House will give—especially in the scientific area where there will be an overwhelmingly strong case in favour of disclosure.
In answer to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell, I also have no doubt that the Government would have an extremely hard time justifying the non-disclosure of whole categories of information on a hypothetical future basis, just as we found in the courts in the field of public interest

827
immunity when what were called "class claims" were made. In the end, the courts said, "The game is up. You can't simply have very broad categories of information whose disclosure is completely and absolutely immune from disclosure in the circumstances of a particular case".
I apologise to the House for having taken so long with my remarks. As for some of those who have been strongly critical of those of us who support the general shape of the Bill as it now appears before us, I really believe that they continue not to understand that the terms of engagement are radically altered. The Home Office will deny that that is so; it will say that these changes are minimal. The Home Office will instruct its counsel in particular cases to argue the contrary, as is its right. However, it will be contrary to the whole of the decided case law of the Court of Appeal and of the House of Lords in a whole string of recent cases if those courts do not adopt the liberal principles that I believe we have succeeded in writing into the Bill.
As to the merits of the particular amendments, one awaits the Minister's response before forming a judgment. I believe that the object of the amendments would in fact be achieved in the way in which the issues are hammered out on the anvil of adjudication, if necessary. I very much hope that the Minister and his colleagues will have had that conversion, as will their officials, to the new culture that will make such disputes much rarer than would otherwise be the case.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that it was his amendment that placed subsection (4) in the Bill and that all my amendment seeks to do is to change, in a small way, the scope and emphasis of that amendment? I do not see that that qualifies for all the criticisms that the noble Lord has just made of me.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I agree. I have not criticised the amendments; indeed, I hope that I made that plain. I sought to place both amendments into a context and to repeat the argument that my noble friend Lord Goodhart put forward on the previous occasion; namely, that the changing of a constitutional framework transforms this into a Freedom of Information Bill of which we should all be proud.
As shall not be speaking again, perhaps I may also add my thanks to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, and his colleagues for having been open-minded enough to accept these changes.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Winston: My Lords, I rise tentatively to support my noble friend's amendment. Perhaps I may ask for a little clarification from my noble and learned friend the Minister. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, has raised quite an important issue. Certainly to publish part, but not all, of a scientific paper can be very seriously misleading. There is an issue here, especially as regards scientists, about not publishing the discussion on data that is generated during scientific investigation. The best way for me to illustrate the
828
dangers involved is to put forward an argument relating to a particular case that happened a few years ago.
Noble Lords will remember the publication on Dolly the sheep regarding the cloning of this animal in Scotland. Because the paper in which that information was published did not allow for discussion, the consequence was extraordinary and adverse publicity for what was a very important scientific achievement—publicity that has clouded a whole area of reproduction and developmental medicine. Had such discussion been included, it would have been very clear from the scientists' views based on their best evidence that the cloning of a human being—that is to say, reproductive cloning—would have been quite impossible. If the Government do not publish the whole data and the intention is to fillet papers, it seems to me that there may be a serious issue here that I hope my noble and learned friend can address in his response.
My other concern relates to the fact that much scientific research is carried out on the basis of funding that usually comes from one of our research councils, such as the Medical Research Council, or one of the other funding councils. It is often linked—it may or may not be through direct government funding—with other independent peer review funding because most scientists work with more than one single budget. Such grants are given as part of the public purse, not least because there is a public interest in devolving these grants to the individual scientist. Therefore, there is a serious question about withholding that information, except in the most extreme circumstances. It seems to me that that would clearly not be within the spirit of this legislation.
Lord Brennan: My Lords, I have asked the forgiveness of my noble friend Lady Whitaker for not being present in the Chamber to hear her opening remarks, because I was unavoidably delayed. I also apologise to the House. My noble friend has given me a broad outline of what she said. I rise to express my support for the amendment, which I believe illustrates an issue of great importance at the close of this freedom of information debate; namely, the way in which the Government will treat the scientific and technical data (and the analysis of it) that they possess.
On 20th July of this year the Chief Scientific Officer to the Government, speaking on behalf of his colleagues, issued a statement in which he declared it to be their wish that their scientific material should be disclosed to the public. There is always the proviso of a very good reason why not, but the general intent was that the public should know. On 26th October the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in the other place said on some half dozen occasions that he wanted the public to know about the scientific material on BSE.
I am sure the House will agree that those two approaches were entirely commendable. They were not afflicted by any legal concerns. They were made without having to take into account the existence or purpose of a Freedom of Information Bill and their

829
intent was obvious: within reason, what the Government know the public should know. In our society we are reaching a period of great complexity. The example of the BSE tragedy has horrified us all. The public debate on GM crops persists. The debate yet to come on human cell research will produce the most profound concerns for us all. In any of those debates or concerns do we not want the public to know what they ought to know in order to make their own decisions?
From what my noble friend Lord Winston said, I have the impression that what the Chief Scientific Officer said represents the views of science. I am sure scientists feel that they serve the community and that if they give information to the Government it is given for the benefit of the community. In time to come we shall have a triangle of power in these areas: government, commerce and the world of science and medicine. All three are not above us; they serve us. I can think of no cogent reason why scientific and technical data should not be in the public arena.
At the end of this debate it would be appropriate for my noble and learned friend the Minister to reassure the public that this Bill does not constitute some new barrier between them and the Government with regard to information, but is rather a new and effective bridge to ensure that they receive the information. Whatever the Government's view on the amendment, I hope that the Minister will take the opportunity to tell the world outside, "Never mind the Bill; never mind government interest, commercial interest or the amour propre of science, what we know you will know unless there is an extremely convincing reason why you should not".
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, this has been an interesting short debate. It is one in which those of us who have struggled with the Bill during its various stages have been involved before; namely, the question of the data, facts and analysis that are presented to government Ministers day after day in order to help them reach decisions. I believe that no one in the committee or the House would wish to see made public the mechanics of how Ministers reach their decisions and the papers that flow between them and their civil servants. Sometimes they are made public to the embarrassment of at least some of the parties concerned. However, it would not help the way government reach their decisions for everyone to know that they might read about the issues before them, the options they had and the way they debated them in the newspapers the next morning. No one has argued to the contrary.
However, we are arguing about much of the background material—sometimes that is vital material—on which the Government make their decisions. The noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, has done us a favour in coming back yet again with another variation of the amendment to try to make it more acceptable to her noble and learned friend the Minister. I am not sure what the noble and learned Lord will say in response.
830
I called the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, the shadow Minister. Now that the noble Lord, Lord Winston, has appeared in the debate, I shall change that title. We have heard from the surrogate Minister. They come in twins which I gather is one of the problems with fertility treatment. We have heard a definition. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Lester, that I am not entirely satisfied with what he suggested; namely that the courts will decide what the measure means. I prefer Parliament to decide what it means and say what it means, or even the Government to decide what it means and say what it means. Then we would be clear. The people, through Parliament, would make it clear what they want to happen in this regard.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I thought that under our constitution it was Parliament that made the law and the courts in their independent capacity that interpreted and applied the law. It is not the function of Parliament to interpret the law; it is the function of the courts to do so.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I shall not try to cross legal swords with the noble Lord. The courts apply the law. They interpret it if they have to, but we ought to make the law crystal clear when we pass it. The less interpretation the courts have to do, the better. I see that the noble Lord assents, so at least we agree on that.
The problem here is the one on which the noble Lords, Lord Winston and Lord Brennan, put their fingers. As someone who a long time ago studied science at a rather lower level than the noble Lord, Lord Winston, I know that scientific data can be almost meaningless, at least to everyone bar a small number of experts. It is the analysis of the data that is hugely important. The analysis of the data is important for Ministers who tend not to read the data but the analysis of the data. Occasionally they will study the data to see whether they can work out whether the analysis is correct. Great scientists do not do that; they read the data and then make the analysis. However, there are few scientists in government. That is perhaps a pity. Therefore the analysis is of vital importance. The amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, to which I have added my name, would improve the position.
I am told that the existing open government code of practice is inadequate. As I have made clear, we now agree that an Act is a better way to proceed. The existing open government code of practice states that,
"the facts and analysis of the facts which the Government considers relevant and important in framing major policy proposals and decisions",
should be proactively published. Unless we are clear that not only the facts but also the analysis of the facts will be published as a result of the provisions of the Bill, I suggest to the noble and learned Lord that that will be a step backwards which I am sure he does not intend. I look forward to hearing him accept his noble friend's amendment. If he cannot do that—it is sometimes difficult for government Ministers to accept

831
amendments—I hope that he will at least put on record the simple proposition that it is not just the facts that should be published (because that expression can be narrowly interpreted) but also the analysis of the facts.
When the information is made public and people, and especially newspapers, can study the analysis of the facts, I hope that the debates which take place on the important issues which science will present to us will at least be based on an informed position on the data and that we shall not just be presented with the data and allow every Tom, Dick and Harry to peddle their prejudices. The point of the noble Lord, Lord Winston, about Dolly the sheep was well made. I hope that the Minister will satisfy those noble Lords who have taken part in the debate with regard to the current position of the Bill on that matter.
4 p.m.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, in this short debate noble Lords have gone over two pieces of ground that we have often gone over during the passage of the Bill. The structure of the Bill now involves exemptions but also, under Clause 2, provisions whereby the public authority should disclose the information unless there is a public interest in maintaining the exemption.
I do not intend to go over those debates which we have already had on a number of occasions save to make one point in response to the points made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell. I hope that I have made clear on previous occasions— if I have not done so, I make it clear on this occasion— that, in the case of a piece of information to which an exemption applies but which also falls under the provisions of Clause 2, it is necessary for the public authority to consider in each case whether or not the Clause 2 discretion requires disclosure of the document or the information. It has to be considered on a case-by-case basis.
The second issue is of real concern to noble Lords and the Government: the publication of factual and scientific material and the analysis of scientific material. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, has returned to the point again and again, in particular by reference to the BSE affair. In this House and in government we are all aware of the condemnation in the report of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Phillips, of the culture of secrecy. That is something we no longer wish to see exist.
The Bill has an important part to play but it is worth emphasising that the remarks by the Chief Scientific Officer and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, which the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, mentioned, referred not to the Freedom of Information Bill but to a policy adopted by the Chief Scientific Officer and the relevant Minister which does not depend in any way on the terms of this Bill. I wish to make that clear.
I turn to the specifics of the two amendments. Amendment No. 3 was moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker. I believe that the Government have already made provision for what I understand to be the
832
concerns underlying the noble Baroness's amendment. It is difficult to see what information would come within the terms "scientific, medical or technical" which would not be covered by the provisions for factual and statistical information already in the Bill. Statistical information in relation to a government decision already taken has been taken out of the harm test in Clause 35 and is now subjected to the prejudice test in Clause 36. There is also a significant steer for public authorities towards the particular public interest which exists in the disclosure of factual information which has been used to provide an informed background to decision taking.
In moving the amendment, the noble Baroness was supported by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and my noble friend Lord Winston. They mentioned that the amendment does not extend to cover advice on policy given by government scientists and that it is limited to the scientists' opinion on the significance of the data. This is the analysis point. I believe that it is impossible satisfactorily to distinguish pure analysis of information from advice which is to be given based on that information. The noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, made that point. For example, analysis of data could relate to collation of statistical data or the expression of such data in other ways in order that it be more easily understood. The Government believe that it would be exceedingly difficult for a public authority to make a case for withholding this type of information. However, it is important to have protection for the provision of advice to Ministers in order that good governance be maintained. But the kinds of analysis to which I and other noble Lords have referred would, I think, be impossible to withhold in the vast majority of cases.
The noble Baroness also made reference to the Government being able to withhold information if they felt that there was a public interest in all ingredients of their internal discussion remaining confidential in order to allow the free and frank provision of advice. The Government believe that there is a public interest in keeping certain parts of internal discussions confidential for this reason, as reflected in the existence of exemptions in the Bill. However, balancing the public interest is a completely separate exercise to be conducted if an exemption applies. It is this exercise which will ensure that the legitimate concerns of the noble Baroness are met and that, where it is in the public interest, such information as is covered by her amendment will be released. I hope that these remarks reassure the noble Baroness and others who have spoken on this important issue.
With regard to Amendment No. 4, the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, expressed the same concerns as those mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker. I hope that I have dealt with them adequately in my remarks.
Before I sit down—I suspect that this may be the last opportunity to do so—perhaps I may pay a special tribute to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell, and the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, who have made substantial and influential

833
contributions to the debates in the House during proceedings on the Bill and have contributed significantly to the changes which have been made.
Baroness Whitaker: My Lords, this has been an important debate with distinguished contributions from lawyers and others. My noble friend Lord Winston made significant points on matters which go to the heart of the Bill. I thank all who took part. I thank the Minister for his detailed explanation and, as others have said, the courtesy with which he has dealt with our misgivings.
His explanation will be extremely helpful with regard to the interpretation of the Bill by the public. I hope that the noble and learned Lord will support the interpretation that he furnished today with guidance to the public which makes crystal clear the kind of access they have. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 4 not moved.]
Clause 36 [Prejudice to effective conduct of public affairs]:
Viscount Colville of Culross Viscount Colville of Culross moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 22, leave out line 21 and insert—
("any action or decision for the effective conduct of public affairs which the department, Assembly or authority proposes at some future time to take in any case where—

(i) the information is not exempt by virtue of section 22; and

(ii) it is reasonable in all the circumstances for the information to be withheld at the time when the request for it is made").

The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I thought that I had told everyone that I did not want Amendments Nos. 5 and 6 grouped. I hope that I may be forgiven if I deal with them separately because they are separate points.
Noble Lords will recall that as a result of the decision taken quite late in the evening on Tuesday 14th November Clause 36 still provides for the reasonable opinion of a qualified person. We have discussed the provision under Clause 36(2)(c). The noble Lord, Lord Mackay, has joined his name to the amendment. I believe that he also is not clear exactly what we are talking about. It would be easy for the reasonable opinion of a qualified person to take a quite wide view of what would be likely to prejudice the effective conduct of public affairs. Not all of the qualified persons will be of the calibre of my noble friend Lord Williamson of Horton who conceded that, had he still been in his previous office, he would have been likely to fall into that category. I believe that others may not have such a grasp of the overall situation and their duties under this legislation.
The difficulty about Clause 36(2)(c) is its breadth. It is worth remembering how this matter originally came about. In the draft Bill before the Select Committee presided over by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, of which I was a member, this matter was part
834
of the decision-making and policy formulation issue which is now dealt with in Clause 35 of the Bill. Since then it has been sub-divided. We have just discussed Clause 35. Clause 36 goes further than anything previously conceived of in Clause 38 of the draft Bill.
The explanatory memorandum that accompanied that Bill said:
"Subsection (5) defines a qualified person. For a government department in the charge of a Minister it is a Minister of the Crown. For other government departments it is to be the person in charge of that department. In relation to the National Assembly for Wales it means the Assembly First Secretary. For other public authorities it is to be a Minister of the Crown unless the authority or other person is authorised by a Minister of the Crown".
That is not how it has worked out in the Bill. There is now a much wider range of people either specifically named or able to be nominated by Ministers under the machinery in Clause 36. What will they say is exempt by virtue of subsection (2)(c)?
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, has been pressed continually about that and has given only two examples. One was the premature publication of exam questions. The noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, dealt with that thoroughly. The Minister's other example was the premature disclosure of a local planning authority's proposal to list a building, with the implied invitation that the owner would need to hurry up and demolish it before the listing took place. If that is all that the provision is supposed to cover, my amendment would deal with the problem satisfactorily. It would provide an exemption for such legitimate activities of the public authority concerned that would be published in due course but ought not to be published yet, because premature publication would cause damage.
Given the Minister's arguments so far, I do not understand how he can resist the amendment. He cannot deny that I have simply translated into general terms the sorts of situation covered by his examples. If he has in mind a wider set of circumstances that ought to be covered by paragraph (c), this is our last opportunity to hear them. If that is the case, it might be best if the Government accept the amendment and move amendments to it in another place to deal with whatever they propose to cover.
If the Minister continues to rely on the examples that he has given, it would be wise to constrict the public authority in preventing the publication of information by providing greater clarity in the Bill, not leaving it to the courts. The noble Lord, Lord Lester, has now left, so he cannot tell me anything more about that. We should make clear in the Bill the exemption that we are providing for the benefit of the public authority. The situation is unsatisfactory. The people in charge of the decision will have wide jurisdiction to prevent the public finding out what they want to know. The amendment would help to clarify the situation and to put it in the context that the Minister referred to. I beg to move.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I entirely support the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross. We had an

835
unsatisfactory answer from the Minister on Report. The noble Viscount's interpretation of the clause is entirely reasonable. The wide terms of subsections (1)(a) and, in particular, (1)(b), mean that an exemption is available for almost any information held by almost any public authority at the whim of one of the named individuals. There is no limitation on them and no effective control of them.
The Minister tried to put a different construction on the problem on Report. He said the clause merely provided a helpful restriction on the number of people who could operate the clause, putting the power in the hands of a relatively small number of individuals who would all be upstanding and responsible. He said that the clause would be entirely helpful to the cause of freedom of information.
The crucial distinction between those two views is the position that the information commissioner finds herself in when presented with an appeal against a refusal of access to information as a result of the exemption. It is stated that under the clause the qualified person can determine whether prejudice exists. That is fine, but can they also determine the quantum of that prejudice? Does the information commissioner have to accept that determination? If the qualified person says that the information would cause such prejudice that it should never be released, will the information commissioner be bound by that view, or can she substitute her own view? If she is entirely free to substitute her own view, the clause could do only a relatively limited amount of harm. If, on the other hand, the amount of prejudice is to be determined by the vast array of qualified persons, the clause could do extreme harm to the cause of freedom of information. We got no answer from the Minister on Report. I hope that we shall get one now.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, as the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, said, the examples given by the Minister on Report almost brought noble Lords to the edge of their seats with laughter, particularly the need for a qualified person to be able to prevent potential examination questions being revealed. My noble friend Lord Norton of Louth, who has probably made up more potential examination questions than anyone else in the House, dealt with that. That situation clearly does not need such protection.
We remain worried about the scope to be given to the reasonable opinion of a qualified person. The noble Viscount has done us a favour by coming forward with a modest limitation on that scope. I look forward to the Minister's answer. Perhaps he will give us some better examples this time.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount for raising this important issue. I accept that we have degrouped Amendments Nos. 5 and 6. I shall deal only with Amendment No. 5 at the moment. The Bill provides an exemption for information that would,
"prejudice, or would be likely otherwise to prejudice, the effective conduct of public affairs".
836
The amendment would exempt information that would,
"prejudice, or would be likely otherwise to prejudice, any action or decision for the effective conduct of public affairs which the department, Assembly or authority proposes at some future time to take in any case where

(a) the information is not exempt by virtue of section 22; and

(b) it is reasonable in all the circumstances for the information to be withheld at the time when the request for it is made".

The difference between the existing draft and that draft is quite difficult to detect. It does not for one moment, for example, touch the definition of the qualified person, the number of qualified persons or the role that they perform in determining where the balance lies.
The noble Viscount justifies his proposed amendment by saying that it would cover the examples given. It would, so long as the noble Viscount knows what view the information commissioner or the courts would take about the phrase,
"it is reasonable in all the circumstances for the information to be withheld".
In parenthesis, I refer to what the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, said. If one wants uncertainty about what will happen in the future, one should insert a phrase such as,
"it is reasonable in all the circumstances for the information to be withheld",
because absolutely no guidance is given as to how that would be effected.
However, the clause is not intended simply to deal with the two examples that have been given. As was said on the previous occasion that we discussed this matter, the clause has been inserted because 50,000 public authorities are covered by the Bill. From where we sit at the moment, it is impossible to determine the precise circumstances in which it might be appropriate for information to be withheld because in the future that would prejudice the effective conduct of public affairs by a public authority. If there is a case, first, a named individual must say that such a prejudice exists. Then, under Clause 2, disclosure of that information takes place unless the relevant public authority can satisfy the information commissioner that there is a good reason for not disclosing.
The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, asks whether the information commissioner can weigh the quantum of the prejudice. Of course, she can. The information commissioner will have to do so because she is deciding where the weightier balance lies when it comes to Clause 2.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I entirely understand that that is the process through which the information commissioner goes and that the commissioner will make her own judgment of the weight of public interest in disclosure. However, I am anxious to determine that the judgment of the weight of prejudice will be hers and not that of the authorised person, which is the other side of the balance.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: Yes, my Lords. I confirm that that is the position. That is the effect of

837
our present draft. With the greatest respect to the noble Viscount, the effect of his draft is more complicated, more open, more wide-ranging, less restricted and, in my respectful submission, would not deal with the problems that he identified in moving the amendment. Therefore, in the light of what I have said and in the light of the reassurances that I have given in relation to a number of points, I suggest that the noble Viscount does not move Amendment No. 5.
Viscount Colville of Culross: My Lords, I have moved Amendment No. 5, so I am afraid that we have to deal with it. I shall now respond to the noble and learned Lord, and I am grateful to other noble Lords who have taken part.
I am afraid that I do not understand the noble and learned Lord when he criticises the test that I have provided. As has now been clearly established—I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, for helping in this matter—in every one of those cases the information commissioner will have to ensure that the prejudice, which of course will have to be disclosed to the commissioner, is weighed against the public interest which is relied upon as part of the exercise in non-disclosure. She will have both parts of the equation in front of her.
Why the noble and learned Lord considers that his draft in paragraph (c) is clearer, better defined, more restricted and more ordered in every possible way than what I have put forward is beyond my comprehension. I do not want to prolong this debate. I understand that the noble and learned Lord does not intend to accept anything. Therefore, perhaps I may suggest to him that some device is produced whereby the information commissioner gives guidance to those 50,000 qualified persons who are to take the decisions.
Such guidance will not be provided under Clause 49 in the annual report or in any special report given to Parliament. It will come in case law. That will be difficult, and I do not understand how it will be achieved because the circumstances of individual cases may well be such that the details on the basis of which the information commissioner has reached her decision cannot be publicised. Nevertheless, some guidance will have to be given about the lines that the information commissioner will draw as to where the qualified person is allowed to exercise the powers that at present are set out in paragraph (c).
I am sure that the noble and learned Lord is listening to what I am saying. I hope that in a moment when I move my next amendment he may have the opportunity to respond to that matter. I believe that guidance in this field will be very important, not only to qualified persons but also to members of the public who seek information. At least they will then gradually build up some knowledge of how the system works and of what the information commissioner is likely to do in relation to the balancing act that will be her copious duty in future.
I am very disappointed that the noble and learned Lord gives no further examples, although I had not expected him to give any. I am afraid that it is clear
838
from reading and listening to these debates that we shall never achieve any clarity in this matter. As I cannot do anything about it, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.30 p.m.
Viscount Colville of Culross Viscount Colville of Culross moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 22, line 21, at end insert—
("(For the purposes of paragraph (c) of subsection (2), the effective conduct of public affairs is not to be regarded as prejudiced or likely to be prejudiced insofar as disclosure of the information would, or would be likely to, result in any member of the public seeking, by lawful means, to influence the public authority in relation to any action or decision which that authority has the power to take.").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this amendment covers another aspect of the same point. What is,
"the effective conduct of public affairs",
in the minds of 50,000 public authorities? One of the ways in which one can effectively conduct public affairs is by preventing people discovering what one is working on until it is too late for them to make any form of objection. I am quite certain that that is not what the Government intend; indeed, it is the opposite of what they intend. Nevertheless, that will not necessarily be the view of all public authorities.
I have in mind an incident in which I was involved not long ago in which a planning decision was being appealed. The planning authority was required under statute to publish—and it did publish—all the material that it had received in the form of advice from officers and others which would lead it to its decision. However, it disclosed that other public authorities which had been consulted, as is required under the procedure, had given a vague and dismissive reply. There was no means of discovering what those other public authorities really thought. The vague and dismissive replies were not open to further investigation. There was no means of extracting information relating to what they had considered, what they had rejected and why they had formed the view that they had. I assume that that was what they considered to be the effective conduct of public affairs. I do not believe that that is the right approach, and I believe that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, will tell me that I am correct in that.
However, let us look at the practicalities of the matter. This subject will arise not only in relation to affairs of state under Clause 35 and the issues which we were discussing a few moments ago; it will arise also in relation to all sorts of small decisions which affect individual members of the public as to their health, their environment, their children's education and all sorts of extremely important matters to them as persons and as families. The decisions do not necessarily hang around very long before they are taken.
I want the noble and learned Lord to tell me how the effective conduct of public affairs and disclosure of information about it fit into the timetable of the Bill.

839
The timetable means that a person has to discover that a decision as to the effective conduct of public affairs will be taken by a public authority. Having done so, the request is made and, under Clause 10(1), there are 20 days in which the initial result is to be provided to him, although that can be extended. But that is only the first step.
The second step—and this is Clause 10(3)—is that when it comes to the issue about whether or not there is prejudice, which is where the Liberal Democrat amendments to Clause 3 bite, the period of time during which the public authority shall decide whether or not there is, in its view, prejudice is indefinite. There is no timetable at all and your Lordships have only to look at Clause 3 to see that.
Eventually the public authority may say that the balance has come down against disclosure. So the person who is anxious to know about the details of the matter says, "I will go to the information commissioner" but, of course, he cannot do that because the first thing that he must do is to go through the public authority's complaints procedure. That is set down under Clause 45(2)(e). Under the procedures organised by the public authority for the purposes of this Bill, there must be a complaints procedure. It is only when that has been completed that the information commissioner can start to look into the matter, because she is previously precluded from doing so by Clause 50(2)(a).
How long will that take? Let us suppose that the local authority or the other public authority is dealing with something which is comparatively urgent but, nevertheless, vital to the inhabitants of the area or people otherwise concerned. Will the Bill really give them the opportunity to find out in time what it is that is the basic material on which the decision has been taken? I suggest to your Lordships that it is not.
Therefore, I suggest that we need something in the form which I have tabled as Amendment No. 6 on the Marshalled List. That would make it possible for the public to try to influence the public authority, by lawful means of course, in relation to the decision that is to be taken. By implication, that means that the information must be made available in time to do so.
I am not sure that this matter has previously been discussed and it is a late stage of the Bill at which to do it. Nevertheless, it is implicit in the way in which paragraph (c) is presently phrased that there is really no recourse for the member of the public who wants information and wants it urgently, because the rest of the machinery of the Bill will provide indeterminate delay and it will not be available in time.
I hope that the noble and learned Lord can say something about that because not only will it be of assistance to those who are listening to this debate; it will be of assistance, because it will be in the Official Report, for those who wish to seek information; it will be of assistance to those who are in charge of public authorities and have to make decisions under paragraph (c); and I should have thought that it would be of great assistance to the information commissioner at the early stages, before she has established a code or
840
a jurisprudence of the way in which she will deal with these matters. Therefore, this needs to be addressed by the Government and I look forward to hearing what the noble and learned Lord has to say about it. I beg to move.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the point which the noble Viscount makes is important and it is the first time that it has been raised in the course of our debates. It does not apply only to Clause 36. There is nothing specific to do with that clause. It simply makes the point: what happens when the information is needed urgently? That is the point which the amendment raises.
The position under the Bill is that a public authority must inform the applicant within 20 working days if it is not going to comply with the request. At the same time, if the public interest test applies by virtue of Clause 2, then the public authority must inform the applicant of its determination under that clause or it must indicate when it is going to determine that beyond the 20 days; and if the applicant disagrees with that length of time, the applicant can go to the information commissioner and complain about the length of time.
Obviously, under the Bill there must be a period of time within which the public authority has time to comply with the request. As regards appeals procedures, the noble Viscount is right to say that domestic complaints procedures must be exhausted first—for example, local authority complaints procedures—when there has not been a disclosure. Whether or not there is a provision in relation to those for urgency will depend upon the individual procedure.
The information commissioner's code of practice will say that applications should be dealt with promptly and, if there is good reason why it should be dealt with urgently, no doubt that will be taken into account in determining how quickly to deal with the individual complaint or appeal against a particular ruling by a public authority.
That is as far as I can take it. Inevitably, there must be some period of time within which both public authorities and information commissioners are allowed to deal with the applications. Of course, if the applicant has a particular reason for needing the information urgently, no doubt that will be taken into account when the application is being considered.
Viscount Colville of Culross: My Lords, I do not think that it will because, although the noble and learned Lord sets out what is in Clause 10 and says that there must be some test of urgency, there is still the stage which he did not mention at all—the complaints procedure under Clause 45. That must be gone through too and that is in the hands of the public authority itself. There is no timetable in relation to that and it is on the face of the statute that it is only after that process has been exhausted that the information commissioner can come into the picture.

841
There is no guarantee that the person who seeks the information will have been able to overcome all those delays in order to obtain the information before the public authority makes the decision. There is no appeal to the commissioner until all the complaints procedures have been completed. Therefore, the noble and learned Lord has disclosed a very substantial gap in the way in which this Bill will be practicable from the point of view of ordinary people.
Again, it is no use my pressing this matter at this stage, particularly as it is the first time that it has been raised. But I trust that the Government and the information commissioner will apply themselves to the problem which I have tried to adumbrate; in other words, when an urgent decision is required and the procedures need to be very substantially curtailed in order that a decision can be taken upon the matter in time, before the decision is finally reached by the public authority.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I apologise for interrupting the noble Viscount but what I say will provide him with some assistance. The commissioner will be able to hear complaints before the exhaustion of the authority's internal appeals procedure. Urgent cases would fall into that category. But that obviously does not deal with cases in which the 20-day period has elapsed.
Viscount Colville of Culross: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the Minister for that clarification. However, it does not appear to me to comply with Clause 50(2)(a), which states:
"On receiving an application under this section, the Commissioner shall make a decision unless it appears to him"—
which, of course, means "her"—
"that the complainant has not exhausted any complaints procedure".
It appears to me that, if the complaints procedure has not been exhausted, the commissioner will be denied the opportunity to make a decision.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, perhaps I can assist the noble Viscount in relation to that. If he reads the remainder of Clause 50(2)(a), he will note,
"that the complainant has not exhausted any complaints procedure which is provided by the public authority in conformity with the code of practice under section 45".
That is a reference to the commissioner's code of practice, which will specify the circumstances in which the local or domestic appeals procedure must be complied with before the commissioner's role comes into play.
Viscount Colville of Culross: My Lords, I understand that point, for which I thank the Minister. I do not invite him to say anything further at the moment, but I ask him to listen to my next point. The commissioner would need a code of practice that would enable her to take on board appeals against refusals to disclose in cases of urgency, which have to bypass the complaints procedure. I know that that will be laid down in her
842
own code of practice but, nevertheless, the code of practice will then be applicable to the public authorities, which will have to set up a procedure. She will have to ensure that, where an applicant can make out a case for an urgent decision, the whole process of the complaints procedure would not need to be gone through before her jurisdiction started. I shall leave it at that. The Minister nods his head—I hope to me. I hope that he will ensure that some such provision is included in the code of practice so that public authorities can be required to make timely decisions, or the commissioner allowed to make decisions on their behalf.
In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 45 [Issue of code of practice by Secretary of State]:
[Amendment No. 7 not moved.]
Clause 53 [Exception from duty to comply with decision notice or enforcement notice]:
Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 31, line 26, leave out from ("information") to ("that") in line 27 and insert ("which falls within any provision of Part II stating").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 31, line 36, at end insert—
("() Where the accountable person gives a certificate to the Commissioner under subsection (2), the Secretary of State shall as soon as is practicable thereafter arrange for details of the certificate to be drawn to the attention of each House of Parliament.
() In any case where a certificate under subsection (2) relates to a decision notice or enforcement notice which has been served on a Northern Ireland department or any Northern Ireland public authority, the accountable person shall as soon as is practicable thereafter arrange for details of the certificate to be drawn to the attention of the Northern Ireland Assembly.
() In any case where a certificate under subsection (2) relates to a decision notice or enforcement notice which has been served on the National Assembly for Wales or any Welsh public authority, the accountable person shall as soon as is practicable thereafter arrange for details of the certificate to be drawn to the attention of the National Assembly for Wales.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I can deal briefly with this group of amendments, two of which stand in my name and one in the name of my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth. Before doing so, I thank the Minister for the courteous way in which he has conducted this debate. I also thank other noble Lords, learned and not learned—only because they are not office-holders or have not attended the legal teach-in which we non-lawyers have undergone as we have proceeded with this Bill. I now understand that the most important thing in the law is a balance of "this" against "that".
These amendments deal with the veto that a government Minister is allowed to have on the publication of information. This is a kind of nuclear option for the Government. When all else has failed and they do not believe that it is in the public interest to divulge this information, they are allowed to take the steps outlined in the clause and impose a veto.
We had an interesting debate on the last occasion when I suggested that Parliament should be informed of the use of the veto. I shall not quote the noble and learned Lord extensively. However, I am sure that he will agree that he made much of the fact that Ministers could not abuse the veto system because, if they did, Parliament would soon become irritated and would call them to account. I identified a slight problem. I suggested that there was no real means by which Parliament could know that the veto had been used unless they waited for publication in the commissioner's annual report of the use of the veto—perhaps 10 or 11 months following the event. That would not be very satisfactory.
I proposed what I freely admit was a fairly elaborate method of reporting to the House and having the House debate the issue before the Minister was allowed to comfortably tuck away the veto in his back pocket; perhaps that was a bit too much. But I have now considered how we can achieve a situation in which the Minister would have to inform Parliament. I have two options, one of which is more elaborate than the other, and my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth has another option. I would be satisfied with the usual inspired question that is asked in the other place, to which the Minister is quite keen to give an answer. On any reading of Hansard, your Lordships will see that inspiration for many of these questions usually comes from the Whips. I would be quite satisfied with that. That is a legitimate, sensible and open way of keeping Parliament informed. While one of my amendments does not specify it, that method of informing Parliament would be satisfactory. I very much hope that the Minister will be able to give me some words of comfort. In addition, so that I can be upsides with noble Lords on the Liberal Democrat Benches and have some amendment accepted in this piece of legislation, I hope that he will feel able to accept one of the variations in this menu. I beg to move.
Lord Norton of Louth: My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment No. 11, which is grouped with the amendments tabled by my noble friend. His represent the modest option; mine represents the radical option. I thank the noble and learned Lord in advance for what I am sure will be a constructive response to my amendment. In an ideal world, I would be thanking him in advance for accepting it.
In Committee and on Report, the noble and learned Lord stressed that any Minister issuing a certificate under Clause 53 would be accountable to Parliament for that action. He said that the Bill provides that decisions must be transparent and that a Minister signing a certificate must give reasons for that decision. There is no dispute about the importance of
844
ministerial accountability. The disagreement relates to how effective accountability can be achieved. My amendment is designed to ensure that Parliament is provided with a means of achieving that desirable end. It requires that a certificate issued by a Minister has to be confirmed by both Houses; it provides for a Joint Committee to have sight, on a confidential basis, of the material that is the subject of the veto. The amendment thus ensures that Ministers cannot avoid parliamentary scrutiny. Scrutiny will take place. Ministers will have to answer to both Houses. The amendment also ensures that Ministers cannot fall back on some broad defence, parliamentarians being unsure as to whether or not that defence is justified. The House would be able to have the advice of a Joint Committee as to whether or not the defence was justified.
In Committee, I proposed that the relevant departmental Select Committee of the House of Commons—or, if the certificate covered an issue of national security, the Intelligence and Security Committee—should have confidential sight of the material. On reflection, I have decided that a Joint Committee of both Houses would be appropriate. However, if the certificate relates to an issue of national security, which, of course, is a distinct possibility, I suggest that it should also be referred to the Intelligence and Security Committee.
Making use of a Joint Committee would be feasible and appropriate. It would be feasible because the issue of a certificate would be rare. I take the Government at their word on that. Both Houses would, therefore, rarely be called upon to nominate members to serve on such a committee. It would be appropriate because both Houses would be called upon to confirm the certificate, and it would allow both Houses to appoint senior members to serve on the committee. The Intelligence and Security Committee, which is a statutory body, comprises senior Privy Counsellors. I envisage the Joint Committee comprising a similar membership. It would thus be a body of high standing and integrity.
I made the case for strengthening parliamentary accountability on Report. I do not intend to repeat what I said then; rather, I propose to explain briefly why the Minister's response on that occasion was not persuasive, and hence why I have returned to the issue at Third Reading. On Report the Minister advanced the argument that existing arrangements were satisfactory and that my proposal had two principal defects.
The Minister's justification for the Bill's provisions was that the commissioner, who would have had an opportunity to see the relevant information could,
"report any shortcomings in the decision-making procedure to Parliament".—[Official Report, 14/10/00; col. 259.]
Doubtless the commissioner could. However, I am not concerned here with shortcomings of the decision-making procedure. I am concerned with the decision itself. The Minister argued that my proposal was deficient because it would not add any greater

845
transparency to the process and because the action of issuing a certificate was an executive and not a legislative power.
I would argue that my proposal should be seen in terms of legitimacy. Under the clause as it stands, Ministers will be judge and jury in their own cause. There will always be the suspicion—it may be groundless, but it will exist—that Ministers will exercise the veto to avoid embarrassing material being put into the public domain. My proposal provides for Parliament, enjoying a legitimacy of its own, to confirm that the Minister's reasons for exercising the veto are reasonable.
I would also contend that my proposal does aid transparency. Knowing that they will be answerable to Parliament for their actions—something they cannot avoid—is likely to ensure that Ministers provide as full a justification as possible; and, indeed, that they will not embark on a course of action unless they are sure that they can justify it to Parliament.
As regards the argument for it being an executive power, I understand the case the Minister advances but I do not think that it is conclusive. Parliament confers powers upon Ministers, but variously makes the exercise of those powers subject to parliamentary approval. The ministerial veto here is a power conferred by Parliament. We are not dealing here with executive actions derived from the prerogative.
I therefore do not find the Minister's arguments persuasive. I am greatly tempted to tell the noble and learned Lord that I have applied a balancing test, weighing the needs of the executive against the imperative of parliamentary scrutiny. It is really no contest. Government must be accountable to Parliament.
In this clause we are giving an important power to Government without balancing it with an effective provision for parliamentary scrutiny. My amendment is designed to provide for that scrutiny. I hope that Members of this House will always act to maintain effective scrutiny of the executive.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, we agree on the need for proper accountability in relation to Parliament for the giving of a certificate under Clause 52 which has been described as the ministerial veto. Amendments Nos. 9 and 10 are alternative methods of directly notifying Parliament of that. We have considerable sympathy with the spirit behind the amendments.
Amendment No. 9 is vague because it states that the relevant accountable person should draw the attention of the relevant body to the details of the certificate. That phrase is somewhat vague. Amendment No. 10 does not suffer from the same defect. It states that the accountable person shall lay a copy of the exception certificate before each House of Parliament or the appropriate devolved assembly. We have always made it absolutely clear that the relevant Minister should be accountable to Parliament. We therefore accept that amendment and would support it if the noble Lord,
846
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, is minded to move it. He has made his contribution to the Freedom of Information Bill.
I turn to Amendment No. 11 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth. The effect of the amendment would be that the certificate would be invalidated unless approved by a resolution of both Houses within 20 sitting days. The amendment would also have the effect that a Minister, having signed an exception certificate, would be required within the same period of time to pass in confidence to a Joint Committee the information in question.
As I said in the debate on an identical amendment on Report, that would certainly result in additional delays in reaching a view on whether information might be disclosed or withheld, but I do not believe that it would lead to any greater transparency than the Bill already provides, in particular with the amendment soon to be moved by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish. It is clear that the exception certificate process is not something which would be undertaken without very serious consideration. There are safeguards to ensure that decisions must be transparent. The Minister must give public reasons for the decision. The commissioner will have had the opportunity, if she wishes, to see all the relevant information. She can report under Clause 49 any shortcomings in the decision-making procedure to Parliament, and Parliament itself can, at any time, hold the Minister to account for his actions. We think that that is sensible. It delivers the objectives that the more complicated procedure proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, also seeks to deliver.
We have repeatedly made our position clear on why it is important that Ministers are and must be seen to be responsible in relation to decisions of that sort. We believe that it is right that Ministers, backed by the collective responsibility of Cabinet, should be seen to be responsible for taking decisions in areas such as these and that this is preferable to a position in which that responsibility is transferred to Parliament. In effect, that is what the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Norton, would do. It is right that Parliament holds Ministers to account in relation to that in a way which involves reasons, direct knowledge of what is happening and an independent person able to report any shortcomings. However, ultimately it is for Ministers accountable to Parliament, with Parliament being provided with the proper information, who have to take the decisions. In all the circumstances, I would invite the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, not to move his amendment.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for accepting the argument put forward by myself and noble friend Lord Norton. I am sure that my noble friend accepts that his amendment was pretty much a nuclear option and would require much more parliamentary procedure than my amendment. However, I am grateful to the Minister for accepting that Amendment No. 10 carries out that for which we were searching at Report and, indeed, in Committee; that is, a way for Parliament to be

847
informed expeditiously about the occasions on which government Ministers have used the veto. I suppose I can mark that as a triumph. I shall now be able to look the noble Lords, Lord Lester, and Goodhart, in the face in the competition for who made any amendments to this Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 31, line 36, at end insert—
("() Where the accountable person gives a certificate to the Commissioner under subsection (2) he shall as soon as practicable thereafter lay a copy of the certificate before—

(a) each House of Parliament,

(b) the Northern Ireland Assembly, in any case where the certificate relates to a decision notice or enforcement notice which has been served on a Northern Ireland department or any Northern Ireland public authority, or

(c) the National Assembly for Wales, in any case where the certificate relates to a decision notice or enforcement notice which has been served on the National Assembly for Wales or any Welsh public authority.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 11 not moved.]
5 p.m.
Schedule 6 [Further amendments of Data Protection Act 1998]:
Lord Clement-Jones Lord Clement-Jones moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 71, line 4, at end insert—
(" . In Schedule 3 to that Act (conditions relevant for the purposes of the first data protection principle: processing of any personal data) in paragraph 8(2) after the words "medical research," there is inserted "for the purpose of monitoring the public health".").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 12 I shall not repeat the points made at Report. I simply reiterate that my main motive in tabling amendments on Report and at Third Reading has been the threat to cancer registries potentially posed by an insistence that either all personal data imparted by clinicians to registries must be subject to patient consent or the insistence that information is wholly anonymised. In the view of the registries, that step would render the information of far less use.
Much of the past three weeks has been spent by me trying to get to the bottom of why that should be so and what can be done about it. Sometimes I have felt that I have been hunting the snark in trying to find out the real problems. However, I thank the GMC and the Data Protection Commissioner for their helpful briefings in that respect.
The Minister's statement on Report was also in many ways a breath of fresh air and helpful in pointing out that the Data Protection Act was not the sole culprit, but rather that the common law of confidence was perhaps the greater problem. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, and his officials in the Department of Health have also been helpful, not only in analysing the problem but in suggesting solutions and bringing together the interested parties.
The problems faced by the cancer registries need to be looked at as a series of legal hurdles to overcome if they are to comply with the law and avoid prosecution. The first hurdle is posed by the Data Protection Act where the first data protection principle of fair processing of information needs to be satisfied, and the third principle relating to personal data being adequate, relevant and not excessive must also be satisfied.
As the Minister helpfully confirmed on Report, the Schedule 3 conditions for necessary medical purposes will almost certainly cover this type of public health monitoring. Both the department and the Data Protection Commissioner, however, consider that to qualify as "necessary" there will be an obligation on cancer registries to be satisfied that they really do need all the personal information they collect and to reduce it to the minimum, which is also necessary if the third principle is to be met. There will also need to be adequate information supplied by hospitals and clinics about the work of the cancer registries and the information supplied to them by medical staff so that patients understand what information is supplied and why.
I support the aim of providing better information in that respect to ensure greater awareness of those who are being treated. But that is a different matter from a requirement for consent or explicit consent which can be extremely difficult and, indeed, inappropriate to obtain. Given that, however, the major hurdle appears to be the common law duty of confidence and the protection of a patient's right to privacy.
The Source Informatics case, decided earlier this year, seems to be the legal precedent which is exercising the minds of lawyers advising the GMC, the Data Protection Commissioner and the Department of Health, although the facts of that case, which dealt with anonymised prescribing information being collated for commercial purposes, certainly does not seem to be four-square with the situation here. Indeed, it is slightly baffling since the Department of Health appears to be appealing that decision. I am not sure why it relies on a decision against which it is appealing. My noble friend Lord Lester played an illustrious role in that case, as those who know the case will know, on behalf of the GMC.
That said, the view appears to be that, despite the Data Protection Act, at common law it is not sufficiently clear whether there is a public interest defence in those circumstances for public health monitoring in general and cancer health registries in particular. I believe that the department and Ministers now accept the fact that legislation, probably both primary and secondary in nature, will need to be introduced at the earliest opportunity in order to clarify the situation and that the provision of such information is in the public interest. I very much welcome that acceptance and hope the Minister today will express a clear commitment in that regard.
Finally, at the end of this legal trail we have the Human Rights Act 1998 and the European Convention on Human Rights where cancer registries

849
would need to show pressing social need and proportionality in collecting confidential information from patients. I hope that the early steps taken will allow those tests to be met. Clearly, as I outlined, a number of steps must be taken as a matter of some urgency by government if cancer registries are to continue with their work and not have interruptions or gaps in the data provided to them. In that context, the decision of the GMC not to enforce its code of confidentiality until October next year is to be welcomed.
I am pleased that the organisations involved, including the GMC, seem to be close to consensus about the way forward. However, it places a heavy responsibility on the Government to take the necessary action in the meantime. I look forward to the Minister's assurances in that respect. I beg to move.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I have listened most carefully to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, on this occasion and on Report, and also to my noble friend Lord Turnberg, who expressed similar concerns in relation to public health work, including the tracing of communicable diseases.
We share the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for the future of cancer registries, but the amendment to the Data Protection Act will not help in the way he intends. As I shall explain, it is not primarily a data protection issue. I should like to reassure the noble Lord that the Government are taking these concerns seriously and will take whatever action is necessary to secure the future of cancer registration and other essential medical work, including work relating to public health. If there is no practical alternative, as I told the House on Report, we shall introduce supporting legislation at the earliest opportunity.
Perhaps I may briefly go through the points. The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, knows that the Data Protection Commissioner believes that the processing currently being done by the registries is being done for medical purposes. The commissioner was kind enough to copy to the Home Office and to the Department of Health her letter of 15th November to the noble Lord which makes that point. Disclosure of personal data for such purposes is provided for by Schedule 3 to the 1998 Act. There is therefore no need for a change in that Act. The noble Lord may consider, despite the commissioner's views, that that is still to be tested and that legislation will put it beyond doubt.
The Government take the same view of the law on that point as the commissioner, but I can repeat the assurances I gave a few moments ago. In the unlikely event that our interpretation of the law is wrong, the Government stand ready to consider with the noble Lord and his advisers what actions may be necessary to secure the future of cancer registration or public health work. The Act allows additional "gateways" for the processing, including disclosure, of medical data to be provided by subordinate legislation. If it is necessary—for the reasons I gave neither the
850
Government nor the commissioner believe it is—we will introduce amending secondary legislation to address the concerns.
The point was also clearly made by the noble Lord in regard to common law confidentiality. We believe that the General Medical Council's advice that doctors should disclose sensitive personal data only with consent reflects its understanding of the common law duty of confidence rather than any concerns about the 1998 Act. It is said that the law of confidence requires patients to consent to the disclosure of their personal data unless there is an overriding public interest. The Department of Health is aware of the concerns raised from medical research, including the activities of cancer registries and also in relation to the public health. If there is evidence that the common law duty of confidence might put continuing medical research or public health activity at risk, the Department of Health made it clear that it will look to see what can be done without the need for legislation. But if that is not possible, it will be prepared to introduce legislation at the earliest possible opportunity to address those concerns.
I hope that in the light of those assurances the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. I am grateful for that clear exposition, which wholly tallies with my understanding of the situation. I am fairly convinced that legislation will be needed and in those circumstances I am grateful for his assurance that early legislation will be brought forward. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
Moved, that the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)
Lord McNally: My Lords, I well realise that the Minister is waiting to make a Statement and I see the foreign policy buffs gathering. But it is worth making one or two short observations.
We are at the end of a 25-year road along which many colleagues have travelled. So I should like to pay tribute in the passage of this Bill to my colleagues, my noble friends Lord Goodhart and Lord Lester, for their contributions, and also to the Minister, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, who dealt with us at all times with great courtesy and often with great constructiveness.
The noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, asked on a number of occasions whether these Benches spoke as shadows or surrogates. We are glad to take both descriptions in the final shape of the Bill. Much was made by the Conservatives of the so-called "deal" we made with the Government Front Bench over some key amendments. A lot of that indignation was

851
synthetic. They proved, with the age of consent Bill and the Disqualifications Bill, that if they want to turn out their troops they can do so without our support.
However, the concessions we obtained from the Government were worth while. Those who claimed that we "blinked too early" must consider whether they really wanted the Freedom of Information Bill thrown into the maelstrom of the last eight days of this Session. Whatever else, the passage of the Bill tonight guarantees that the Freedom of Information Bill will be on the statute book this Session. The real analogy is not parliamentary ping-pong but parliamentary poker. It is sometimes smart to know when to cash in your chips and we did that at the right time.
This is not the Bill which the Liberal Democrats would have passed. It is not the Bill which David Clarke would have passed. At this stage it is worth paying tribute to David Clarke's White Paper, which will remain for all of us a benchmark yet to be attained. But it is a Bill worth having. I should have preferred to hear a few more cries of pain from the noble Lords, Lord Armstrong of Ilminster and Lord Butler of Brock well, but you cannot have everything!
In conclusion, there are three hurdles which even an Act of Parliament must clear in order to be effective. The first two were referred to by my noble friend Lord Lester. First, the Bill will need an information commissioner who is robust in testing the powers which it gives her. Secondly, it will need the courts to be liberal and radical in their interpretation. Thirdly and most importantly—and this was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Brennan—it will need Ministers who believe in freedom of information. One of the most telling points ever made about the previous administration was made by the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, when he described his colleagues as being in office but not in power. That charge sometimes hangs over the present Government.
All ministerial office is transitory. One of the lasting marks which each and every one of the present Ministers can make during their period of office is to ensure that the Bill is followed in spirit as well as in letter in the Whitehall departments over which they preside. It is no use blaming the wiles of Sir Humphrey, or even of Sir Robert or Sir Robin, if Ministers do not try to make the Bill work. If they initiate the training programmes to instil a new culture into the bureaucracy, and if they believe in the citizens' right to know, the Bill will be seen as more significant than its critics now allow. It will redeem a 25-year promise and justify the Campaign for Freedom of Information, Charter '88, the UCL Constitution Unit and others who have worked so hard to put it on the statute book. It will strengthen our democracy, make the executive more accountable and increase the power of both Houses of Parliament and of the three aspects of the media to ensure that those who seek to rule us are our servants, not our masters.
The Earl of Northesk: My Lords, your Lordships will appreciate the need of my noble friend Lord Mackay to prepare for his business scheduled for today. It will come as no surprise to the Minister—
852
indeed, to the whole House—that he is even now working feverishly to engender the same degree of consensus and co-operation which we enjoyed during the Bill's Third Reading, particularly on Amendment No. 10.
Accordingly, and although I am a poor substitute, on behalf of my noble friend I join in the plaudit; of the noble Lord, Lord McNally. As usual, the House can congratulate itself that the Bill, whatever its gestation, is returned to another place in much better shape than when it arrived. I congratulate all noble Lords who have assisted in that process, not least my noble friends Lord Lucas and Lord Norton. I thank the Government Front Bench, the noble and learned Lord the Minister and his officials for ensuring that our debates on the Bill have been unfailingly courteous and informative.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I, too, join noble Lords in their remarks about the good natured and constructive way in which debates on the Bill have been conducted. We have made significant changes to the Bill and I am grateful for all the contributions from around the House.
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.

Business
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, before we move to the Statement on European Defence Co-operation, I should like to take this opportunity to remind the House that the Companion indicates that discussion on a Statement should be confined to brief comments and questions for clarification. Peers who speak at length do so at the expense of other noble Lords.

European Defence Co-operation
5.25 p.m.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement on European defence co-operation being made by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence in another place. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, I would like to make a Statement to the House about recent developments in European defence co-operation. There are those who in recent days have, frankly, become a little over-excited. I would like to try to set out the facts and separate them from the Euro-sceptic fiction.
"Our aim is the improvement of European military capabilities to deal with the security challenges now facing us. These enhanced capabilities will be available to the countries concerned, to the European Union and to NATO. This is a key step towards achieving our goal of strengthening the European pillar of NATO and encouraging our European partners to do more.

853
"This is an aim that everyone in this House should share. It is about making it easier for British Armed Forces to deploy in a multi-national context—something which is a routine requirement of modern operations. I spent this morning with the Royal Regiment of Wales and the Royal Green Jackets, currently serving in Paderborn in Germany. They emphasised the number of recent occasions when they had been deployed alongside European forces, from Holland, from France and from Italy.
"I would like to set out just what we have been discussing this week at the Capabilities Commitments Conference in Brussels. Last year, at the Helsinki Summit, it was agreed that European Union nations should by 2003 be able to deploy rapidly up to 60,000 ground troops to meet the full range of crisis management tasks. These troops could either contribute to NATO-led operations or, where NATO as a whole was not engaged, to European-led crisis management missions.
"Over the past two days, European partners, both in the European Union and those outside it, have been identifying the type and level of forces that they might be able to make available to Petersberg operations. This is not a standing European army. It is a pool of potentially available national forces. It envisages full transparency and consultation with NATO as a potential crisis develops. It would then be for contributing countries to decide whether, when and how to deploy their armed forces. No country would have to take part. The British Prime Minister, answerable to this House, will always have the final say over the use and deployment of British Armed Forces.
"NATO is, and will remain, the cornerstone of European defence. It alone remains responsible for the collective territorial defence of its member states. The European Union has stated repeatedly that its aim is to have the ability to conduct military crisis management operations only where NATO as a whole is not engaged. Nothing that has been done in the European Union this week changes any of that. For the foreseeable future, major operations of this kind would draw on NATO assets and use NATO operational planning and command structures. It would, in short, be NATO-supported. So, it is time we lowered the temperature and raised the tone of the debate.
"One way of doing this is to place the current developments in context. In 1992, the Maastricht Treaty established the present framework of the European Union. It was this treaty which established the so-called 'second pillar' of a common foreign and security policy. It said that member states,
'shall define and implement a common foreign and security policy'
and went on to specify that this,
'shall include all questions related to the security of the Union, including the eventual framing of a common defence policy, which might in time lead to a common defence'.
854
That policy was signed up to by the previous Conservative Government—by both the right honourable Member for Huntingdon as well as the current Leader of the Opposition. Through the Western European Union, the previous Government explicitly promoted the development of a European capability for use when NATO as a whole was not engaged. They seem to have forgotten that.
"I assume that this policy is still supported by the right honourable Member for Huntingdon. Those who look for consistency in their politicians might assume that the Leader of the Opposition would still support a policy to which he signed up as an ambitious Minister in government. At least it can be said that in terms of consistency the Shadow Defence Spokesman has consistently opposed Maastricht and the European Union. His Euro-sceptic opposition now leads the Conservative Party, with its leader jumping on the anti-European bandwagon.
"The Leader of the Opposition should not try to hide behind NATO. It was NATO at Berlin in 1996 that offered to make its assets available for European operations; and it was NATO at the Washington Summit last year that offered its support for the European Defence Initiative. The policy we are discussing today has not suddenly appeared. What we are doing is a long way short of the aspirations to which the previous Government agreed.
"I apologise for this short history lesson. It is important to be clear that the aim I declared at the beginning—the improvement of European capabilities—is not only one that all parties have shared but one that has already been pursued over several years. Yet, if it is necessary for Europeans to do more, why do they not simply take action within NATO? The answer is that we do take action within NATO. The fundamental structures of co-operation are there in planning, training and command and control arrangements. What we are doing through the European Union will complement this action.
"There are three main reasons for saying so. First, there is a clear imbalance in capabilities between the Europeans and the United States which has grown over the past decade. Kosovo was a wake-up call. Both the US and NATO strongly support increased efforts by Europe to respond to this challenge. Not a single senior figure in the US Administration is opposed to these proposals. Madeleine Albright described Monday's conference in Brussels as
'a strongly positive development [that] we wholly support'.
At the recent NATO conference in Birmingham Bill Cohen, the US Defense Secretary, said:
'Let me be clear on the American position. We agree with this goal, not grudgingly, not with resignation, but with wholehearted conviction'.
"The effort that is now being put into developing better European capabilities, which is being led by Britain, is beginning to have an effect. For years

855
defence budgets around Europe have been falling. Next year, according to figures given to NATO by its member nations, defence spending will rise in real terms in 11 of the 16 European states of NATO. The restructuring of armed forces to make them better equipped to face today's challenges is taking place in a number of EU countries.
"Secondly, the European Union is already actively involved in crises through economic sanctions, diplomatic measures and humanitarian aid, but it has lacked clout. In security matters, especially in a real crisis, political weight reflects military weight. The EU has lacked a practical method for mobilising a military response.
"The third reason is that additional political will and momentum for Europe to improve its capabilities is best generated through NATO and the EU. The multi-dimensional nature of security issues demands a co-ordinated political response. For that, frankly, we would be failing if we did not make full use of the mechanisms offered by the European Union. The Capability Commitments Conference earlier this week is neither something to fear nor something to scaremonger about. On the contrary, we as a nation should be delighted to see our European partners making a serious commitment to improve their capability to be able to respond to crisis management situations. It strengthens the military capability and resolve in the EU and also the capability within the NATO Alliance.
"This is a statement of requirement—a goal, a level of ambition. It is a means of galvanising action. That is why it is called the Headline Goal. It is not a European army: it is not even a standing rapid reaction force. Nor is it confined to the European Union. On Tuesday, we heard from non-EU NATO nations and from the 15 EU aspirants. They too support this goal and have offered forces towards it. Yet, as we have seen, the Opposition would pull Britain out of this process and isolate us not only among the 15 EU members but also non-EU states.
"Since Helsinki, military experts in both EU countries and NATO have developed a detailed statement of requirement for the pool of forces and capabilities needed to cover the Petersberg tasks: peacekeeping, peace support and peace enforcement. On Monday, countries nominated elements of their national forces which they believed could contribute to this requirement. The process of identifying these forces is, in principle, no different from the process of declaring forces to NATO or to the United Nations. We need the ability to assemble the right sort of force quickly for a range of possible operations.
"The key difference about the current initiative is that capabilities are being identified against a specific goal. The countries involved are demonstrating their determination to follow through in the areas of shortfall and deficiency which this process will highlight. Therefore, this is a
856
step in a process, not the end of the road. We are perfectly well aware that there are many detailed issues to be followed up in both the EU and NATO.
"Like others, the UK has identified a pool of forces and capabilities as its contribution to wards achievement of the headline goal. These forces provide for a balance across the full range of Petersberg tasks, including the most demanding. In the maximum scale operation envisaged at Helsinki—a corps level deployment of up to 60,000 ground troops—the UK land component could be about 12,000 strong. Maritime and air deployments of up to 18 warships and 72 combat aircraft could be made in addition. I set all this out in more detail in my response to the Question from my honourable friend the Member for Loughborough on Monday.
"Let me be clear about what this initiative is and what it is not. It is a planning process to ensure a more effective defence effort by European forces. It is a mechanism to improve European contributions to NATO and to ensure that European nations can in future play a more effective part in alliance operations. It will encourage more efficient and targeted defence spending by our European friends, and it will ensure that when NATO is not engaged the European Union can act effectively in a wide range of peace support operations, if and when its member nations want it to.
"It is not a European army or even a standing reaction force. It is not an agreement to give up or reduce Britain's sovereign control over British forces, and it is not a commitment to undertake operations in which we would not previously have wished to take part. It is not, therefore, a new burden for our Armed Forces. Those who have said this either do not understand what is happening or deliberately seek to mislead for reasons of political opportunism. The success of our Armed Forces in co-operating with our partners and allies deserves better. The Opposition should be ashamed of themselves for trying to use our Armed Forces to further their own anti-European obsessions".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
5.29 p.m.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement. I hope that the Minister will forgive me if I do not pursue the reference to over-excitement—I note that the earlier draft referred to "hysteria"—and the partisan jibes. I am sure your Lordships agree that those matters are more suitable for another place, and in any event they are not appropriate in view of the very serious nature of the issue that we are discussing. So I shall ignore them.
We on this side of the House are totally in favour of a stronger European contribution to NATO, a stronger European branch of NATO. If this project is about that, and that really is the aim of the entire undertaking, we would have no problems with it. We have always supported that. That is what NATO put forward at Berlin in 1996. The Secretary of State for

857
Defence is right to allude to it. The previous government supported it. We still support it from this side.
But the question is: is this still the same project? Does not this new proposal have its own unified command; its own planning committees under the European Union; its own military staff, already set up incidentally—I do not know under what powers, but perhaps the noble Baroness will tell us; and its own headquarters? Eventually, the clear intention is that it should have also its own intelligence, logistics and heavy-lift. That will happen only when the money is found, because we are talking about enormous sums. If it is not found there would be a danger of vast duplication.
We want to see NATO strengthened by a greater European contribution. But anyone who has been in the Army, even in a junior position, will know that it is essential for soldiers to have a single command and control structure and single and clear planning procedures. There is a risk here that we shall have double command and control and a double set of planning procedures. For instance, the Deputy SACEUR will not be the co-ordinating officer for the new force and for NATO; he will have merely a liaison role. Can the noble Baroness explain why that should be so? That does not imply the kind of unity and clarity of command which soldiers need.
I turn to the question of defence spending. Where is the money coming from? In his Commons Statement the Secretary of State mentioned more spending next year. But it will need to be a very large increase. What will be cut to make room for it? Will other defence arrangements be cut? We need to be clear on that issue and not just push it aside. Everyone, including the Pentagon and the Americans concerned, has made it clear that they want to see more spending to make a reality of this, if it is not just to be a paper exercise.
Then we have the non-EU NATO states which are extremely worried. The statement pushes that aside. But Turkey has expressed profound concern that it is being cut out of the planning procedures. Norway has also expressed some worries. Can the noble Baroness reassure us that those countries' worries are misplaced and that it will be the same as before for them? Is she aware—this is perhaps the most important of all the points—that, despite the strong statements, which I recognise from Madeleine Albright and others, there are many worries in the United States. She must have heard them. She is very close to these matters. Did she notice the recent quotation from the US Ambassador to NATO? He said:
"done poorly, this process can divide the transatlantic alliance, lead to decreased US engagement in European security matters and diminish European capacity to manage crises".
Those are not the words of someone who is not worried or who is totally and unconditionally supportive. There are worries.
Finally, I would say to the noble Baroness that the Secretary of State's Statement offers us some history lessons. There is much history in the role and position
858
of the noble Baroness's party in defence matters. I do not want to go over that now. But a couple of years ago the Prime Minister said that nothing must undermine NATO. Our view is that there is a real risk that this could undermine NATO. It is regrettable that our superb Armed Forces, which the world admires, are now caught up in what looks dangerously like a political game. We need much more reassurance from the noble Baroness and from the Government before we can say that this is just more of the same and no one should worry.
5.34 p.m.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, this was an unusually partisan Statement. On most occasions from these Benches we would deplore that. But on this occasion we agree that that is justified.
The reaction of the Conservatives and of the press has been—I am sorry the Minister did not repeat the word—hysterical. This is a British initiative which has been well-signalled over the past 18 months and builds on the policy of the previous government. It has been carried through by a Secretary-General of the Council who was previously the Secretary-General of NATO. The idea that this is some dreadful French plot being sprung on the British—which is how the Daily Telegraph likes to describe it—is clearly absurd.
Perhaps I may remind noble Lords that in June 1962 President Kennedy of the United States of America first called for a European pillar of NATO. In 1964, as a young Liberal, I took part in a study group in the United States on how to improve the European pillar of NATO—a short while ago. The Americans have made it entirely clear since then that they expect the Europeans to stand more on their own two feet. If we now face a Bush administration, Condoleeza Rice, one of his key advisers, has also made it clear that the Americans will reduce the number of their troops in Europe and will expect the Europeans to stand more on their own two feet.
My understanding is that British troops have been engaged in some 22 to 24 operations since 1990. In 17 of those we have operated outside of NATO command with forces from a range of other countries. Part of the origin of this initiative, as I understand the matter, is the co-operation from which British and French troops have benefited in Bosnia, which was a learning process for both sides. It was out of that that the previous Conservative government developed the Franco-British defence initiative, at a time when Michael Portillo was the Secretary of State for Defence. Indeed, a Franco-British air wing had been agreed during the term of office of the previous government. German forces were already training in Britain. That had been agreed many years previously. There was the joint Tornado training team in England and Italy. German tank crews were training in Pembrokeshire and elsewhere. There is the Dutch-British marine amphibious force. So much of this is not new.
As we understand it on these Benches, the aim of the defence initiative is to improve European capabilities; to challenge other European governments to follow

859
the British model; and to improve our ability to work together in the field. Under most circumstances, we expect that British troops will be working with troops of other nations in the field.
Perhaps I may ask the Minister a few questions. First, how satisfied is she with the pledges which were given in this pledging conference and what are the most worrying remaining gaps? Secondly, does this imply that changes will need to be made to the treaties at Nice in order to incorporate the interim arrangements, to which the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, referred, and to bring them more within the constitutional arrangements? Lastly, is parallel progress underway in civilian crisis management and in the provision of seconded police forces for the follow up to necessary Petersberg task engagements?
5.38 p.m.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I thank both noble Lords for their responses to the Statement and for the constructive way in which they have approached it.
Perhaps I may say to both noble Lords that I repeated the Statement as it was given by my right honourable friend in another place, as is my duty in your Lordships' House. The word "hysterical" was not used in another place.
I am very pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, is in favour of a stronger European defence. That is entirely consistent with the position that has been taken by his party under the Maastricht Treaty and indeed elsewhere. The noble Lord said that he had a number of misgivings. To a certain extent, I can understand those misgivings. I believe that they were based on a number of fundamental misconceptions. We are talking here about Petersberg tasks. Those Petersberg tasks might range from humanitarian relief, which is fairly straightforward, through peace-keeping, to—as the Statement made clear—peace enforcement. Peace enforcement is likely to include a commitment to a greater number of troops.None the less, these are Petersberg tasks.
The noble Lord was worried about the costs that might be involved. The additional costs to the Ministry of Defence are expected to be over £200,000. That figure is based on the cost of additional persons for the EU military structures. But it is offset—this is an important point—against the wind-down of the WEU. Both those factors have to be taken into account. In addition, the FCO will require an establishment of six posts within the EU structures. The cost of that will be somewhere between £300,000 and £500,000. Therefore, the additional cost to the UK taxpayer should be somewhere between £500,000 and £1 million. It is important that all noble Lords understand that there will be an off-set.
The noble Lord was understandably concerned about the way in which planning procedures will be undertaken. I may be able to help him a little on that point but I cannot go into great detail. For many of the operations, the preferred option will be the Deputy
860
Supreme Allied Commander Europe—DSACEUR—and the facilities of SHAPE—Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe—will also be deployed. Planning would be done initially by SHAPE and recommendations would be made from SHAPE to the European governments. It might make recommendations about the operational commanders and how a group of forces might go into an operational position. The commander would be responsible to the European governments.
I do not think that there is anything very exceptional in that. What is proposed is not particularly startling. I do not think that many of your Lordships will find it particularly different from the accepted means of multi-national co-operation on a number of these issues. I hope that that puts some of the noble Lord's worries into context. Of course, it would not always be SHAPE. For example, for small operations—such as humanitarian operations—different planning mechanisms might be used. I am sure that your Lordships would find that entirely proper and consistent for operations that did not involve a heavy military deployment. I hope that I have dealt satisfactorily with the questions about costs and about the way in which the commander structures will work.
The noble Lord understandably raised concerns about those who are members of NATO but stand outside Europe. He referred in particular to Turkey. I can say that Turkey attended the meeting in Brussels yesterday morning. The noble Lord is quite right. Turkey has in the past expressed some concerns about these discussions. But I am happy to say that yesterday Turkey was able to commit some troops to the Headline Goal. I am not able at the moment to put this into the public arena any more than I am able—I say this to the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire—to put into the public arena the details of what has been put forward by other European Union countries. That is because not all countries are as open about these matters as the United Kingdom; and in any event they would want to put them into the public arena first in their own countries. I hope that as soon as such information becomes publicly available in their own countries we will be able to give maximum information on what has been put forward by other countries. I am sure that your Lordships would wish to have that information. I shall do my best to ensure that it is made available to the House as soon as possible.
The noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, was worried about what had been said by the US ambassador to NATO. Anything done poorly can cause trouble between nations. But it was interesting to hear the US ambassador to the EU saying yesterday:
"We strongly support the European defence force—the rapid reaction force. We think it will help and strengthen NATO".
The noble Lord has been kind enough to acknowledge what Madeleine Albright has said. He will know, because he is very experienced in these matters, that that reinforces what Strobe Talbot and Bill Cohen have said. We have had a considerable degree of support from our allies in the United States who, for a considerable time, as the noble Lord pointed out, have been stressing to the European nations that we had to

861
do more to strengthen our position. I am happy to say that a number of European countries are not only putting more resources into their defence effort but are also reviewing that effort to ensure, as we have done with the SDR, that it is in line with modern defence needs and does not ratchet back into the old Cold War stance.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, for his support on the Statement. The Liberal Democrats have been very understanding of the position.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the Liberal Democrats have quite rightly studied the position properly and, if I may say so, I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, had also understood the position very much better than some others in his party.
We have learnt considerable lessons from Kosovo. As the Statement said, Kosovo was a wake-up call. When we look at the number of sorties undertaken by NATO in Kosovo and see the sharp contrast between the number undertaken by the United States and the number undertaken by Europe, any responsible country would have to look at what it was able to do.
I hope that I have dealt with the questions asked by the noble Lord, Lord Howell, about our contribution. We believe that it is a proportionate contribution. It is in the range of about 20 per cent of the proportions put forward. But we are a strong defence nation in Europe and we believe that that is entirely consistent with our standing in Europe. We have been very pleased to see the way in which other nations have come forward. The noble Lord was quite right on civilian crisis management. These are important issues. We have been able to get rather further ahead on them than on some of the defence issues. Our discussions are continuing. As the Statement makes clear, this is not an end of the road; it is an important step on the way.
5.48 p.m.
Lord Bramall: My Lords, soldiers are supposed to advance to the sound of the guns; and so here I go over the parapet. Is the Minister aware that there are a number of us former military men who have had considerable experience over 50 years or more—one might say that one has almost lived history—of our Armed Forces serving under foreign commanders and non-national banners, inside NATO and elsewhere? Is she further aware that we do not subscribe to or share that—I hesitate to use the word, certainly not in your Lordships' House but in other places—hysterical reaction against closer European defence co-operation within NATO and indeed think it is entirely sensible for European countries, using their own national contingents, to get their act closer together to deal with specific eventualities of a limited nature and also to put them under some pressure to put their defence money where their mouth is?
862
This is a serious initiative which should be looked at in a positive way. I am distressed to see that it seems to have been swept up in a much wider political argument.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I thank the noble and gallant Lord for his words. I am aware of his very great experience in these matters. As he said, on very many occasions British armed forces have served under foreign commanders. I thank him for what he said about this being an entirely sensible way forward. He said that this will put pressure on our European partners. The noble and gallant Lord has often put pressure on me and on other Ministers concerning the resources available to the Armed Forces. I agree with him. I hope that this move will put pressure on others, those who so far have not been able to come forward with increases in their defence budgets, to think again on that front.
I thank the noble and gallant Lord for saying that this is a positive initiative. He has also said that he agrees with what has been said by the current Chief of the Defence Staff, General Sir Charles Guthrie. He commented that he had never heard anyone in authority within the chain of command in this country, whether Ministers or servicemen, talk of a European army, navy or air force. This move is not so very extraordinary. Once again I thank the noble and gallant Lord for his words of welcome, given that he has been so robust in his criticisms on other occasions.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, can the noble Baroness tell the House whether the neutral countries of the European Union have taken part in any of the conversations on this matter? I refer in particular to the Republic of Ireland and Sweden. Do those countries intend to take part in this initiative? If so, under what circumstances?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I believe that the neutral countries have taken part in the discussions. The noble Viscount will know that, on occasion, the neutral countries do subscribe troops to NATO actions. Indeed, they did so recently in the Balkans, although on that occasion Ireland did not.
I cannot tell the noble Viscount that their representatives have been present on every occasion that this matter has been discussed. We would not necessarily expect them to be. However, if there is any more detail that I can reasonably send to the noble Viscount on what measures have been discussed with the neutral countries, I shall write to him and place a copy of the letter in the Library of the House.
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, on a couple of occasions my noble friend referred to peacekeeping and peacemaking activities. Can she tell the House, first, whether it is intended that this force shall have serious war-making capabilities and whether it is intended that those should be used? Secondly, can she confirm that it is not the present or future intention of Her Majesty's Government that either the deployment of British forces or the non-deployment of British forces

863
shall at any time be subject to the decision of any organ of the European Union without the consent of the British Parliament and the British Government?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I can give an unequivocal assurance to my noble friend: there will be no deployment or non-deployment of British forces without the express agreement of the British Prime Minister, who will be accountable to another place. I hope that that was made clear in the Statement. But I am grateful to my noble friend for giving me the opportunity to re-emphasise the point to the House.
As regards the other issues raised by my noble friend Lord Gilbert, perhaps I may explain in detail the Petersberg tasks. I know that they will be familiar to him but perhaps they will serve to bring home the point. Those tasks are of a humanitarian and rescue nature; namely, peacekeeping and tasks of combat forces in crisis management, including peacemaking. Peacemaking is an important task because it includes the separation of warring parties, conflict prevention, the evacuation of nationals and the provision of humanitarian aid. The important point to note here is that the Petersberg tasks imply a degree of conflict which can move beyond those of pure peacekeeping because they involve the separation of warring parties as well as peacemaking. Given the noble Lord's enormous experience in the Ministry of Defence, he will know far better than I that the tasks imply a greater degree of engagement in conflict than mere peacekeeping.
Lord Roper: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the Statement which she has repeated indicates that the Government have now accepted the position put forward from these Benches over a long period; namely, that there is no contradiction between being a good Atlanticist and being a good European? Does she also accept that the proposals which have been put forward for planning had already been accepted by NATO last year at its Washington summit? At that point, the representatives went as far as to form a "Berlin plus" agreement, a series of decisions which,
"Assured EU access to NATO planning capabilities able to contribute to military planning for EU-led operations",
as well as giving us,
"The presumption of availability to the EU of pre-identified NATO capabilities".
Does not this indicate that the 19 member states of NATO have already collectively endorsed this as a way of strengthening the capacities for security in Europe?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Roper, that I believe that this reflects the position of sensible parliamentarians across all three parties. The noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, has demonstrated to the House today that there are extremely sensible members in all the main political parties.
The noble Lord, Lord Roper, is right to say that these proposals are based on the planning put forward in Washington. I am happy to confirm that NATO has
864
not, as some have suggested, been wringing its hands with despair over these developments. It has been pleased to see the development of what might be described, loosely, as a European pillar of NATO. As I have said already, we are happy to take this forward. We have not yet reached an end position but we have reached an important signpost in our progress on this matter.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement, although I must say that on occasion it sounded rather more like a party political broadcast than a ministerial Statement. However, the one point which most frightened me, but which I believe was meant to be reassuring, was that this is only one step along the road rather than the end of the road. That is what is worrying some of us a great deal. What is at the end of this road? If the establishment of this force is not the end of the road, to where does it lead? Is it leading to a political end or is it leading to a greater integration of the Armed Forces? I should be grateful if the noble Baroness could answer those questions when she comes to reply.
I think it is clear from the Statement that whichever side of the argument one is on there are clear and serious implications for the morale and effectiveness of our Armed Forces. It is no good to say that this does not affect the deployment of our Armed Forces. If such a force is ever deployed, it will increase the overstretch from which our Armed Forces already suffer. There are implications for our relationship with NATO. However that may work out and whomever one speaks to in the United States or in the Royal Regiment of Wales, it does not really tell us exactly what will be the impact on NATO.
At the very least, this has implications as regards our relationship with the United States, especially in the world of intelligence. I know that we cannot delve too deeply into the matter in your Lordships' House, but the noble Baroness will know that the implications of setting up a separate intelligence organisation within the European Union will be considerable. Furthermore, relationships with Russia are involved. President Putin has already begun to paddle in these waters, as we have seen from recent reports.
However, what is most important is this. Has anyone thought through the consequences of the expeditionary force concept, which this force will reflect? If it is to do anything at all, it will either form or be the basis of an expeditionary force activity taking place somewhere. Has anyone yet worked out how that force is to be protected, especially against missiles if its members start dabbling in areas in which there has been a proliferation of ballistic missiles? Can the noble Baroness tell us whether all these implications have been thoroughly studied? When we come to debate these matters, I hope that we shall be given rather more information about this.
In that context, I wonder whether any other noble Lords share my view? I have received a signal from the Government Front Bench to sit down. I am not going to sit down because this matter is too important. My final point is this: I am surprised that this was not made

865
the subject of a full debate in Parliament before any action was taken. This represents a fundamental change in the deployment of our Armed Forces, with constitutional implications. I hope that the noble Baroness will use her influence with the usual channels to ensure that we can have a full debate on this in your Lordships' House at the earliest possible opportunity.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, as to the noble Lord's final point, to my certain knowledge the House has discussed this issue following Statements in relation to NATO summits and EU summits, and I have, both as a Foreign Office Minister and Defence Minister, answered a number of questions raised in a number of debates. As this Statement makes clear, this has not come as a bolt from the blue. The Government have signalled it for a very long time—certainly from the St Malo discussions at the end of 1998, which began with the Prime Minister's visit to France on that occasion. I take issue with the noble Lord's implication that this matter has been sprung on Parliament when the groundwork has been very carefully laid.
The noble Lord asked where this is all leading. He said, "The noble Baroness said that this was a step on the way, so where is this path taking us?" It is leading to better equipped European armed forces. It is leading to forces which will be able to engage where NATO decides not to. That is where it is leading. It is very clear. It is doing so because of the lessons we learnt in Kosovo and because the United States, on a number of occasions, has made clear to its European allies that it believes we should be putting more effort into our defence capability. We believe that is right, as do the other nations in Europe. That is where it is leading.
This is a step forward because we are now agreeing to it. Implementation is, of course, a quite different issue. Having now made these agreements, we have to see how they are implemented. That is the sense in which I say this is a very important step.
Our colleagues in NATO believe that this is a sensible move. On 20th November, the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, stated:
"This is simply a sensible project designed to build relevant European capabilities, all of which will be available to NATO. It is designed specifically to complement NATO and not to duplicate it or undermine it, and certainly not to replace it".
I heard a commentator on the radio this morning say, "Well, Lord Robertson would say that, wouldn't he? He used to be a Labour Minister". That is to do less than justice to the integrity of the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, as the Secretary-General of NATO. Quite rightly, he puts NATO first. Noble Lords on the Benches opposite may find that amusing, but we on these Benches take those points very seriously. I shall certainly defend the integrity of the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, in what he said.
As I said to my noble friend Lord Gilbert, it is important to remember that the tasks to be undertaken are Petersberg tasks. The noble Lord is right to say that if we are to engage in these tasks—whether as a single
866
country or in co-operation with others—our troops must be properly equipped. That is why we have taken such pains to learn the lessons from Kosovo. We are being painstaking over what we should be doing about communication systems and painstaking over what we should be doing about our missile systems. We have taken steps to ensure that we have better equipment for our Armed Forces in the short term as well as in the long term.
I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, that the safety of our troops is at the forefront of our minds. These issues would be the same for any expeditionary force in which the United Kingdom's Armed Forces were engaged.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords—
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, the Minister—
Lord Shore of Stepney: My Lords—
The Attorney-General (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, I believe it is the turn of the Conservatives.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords—
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the Minister—
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I suggest that we first hear the noble Lord. Lord Pearson.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, no less than three times the Minister has said that this will not be a European army. Will she perhaps comment on the remarks of no less a person than the President of the European Commission, Mr Prodi, who said recently,
"You need not call it an EU army if you do not want to. You can call it a Margaret, or you can call it a Mary-Anne. You can call it what you like, but it will be an EU army".
Does the Minister agree that there is also another view on this European initiative; that it is in truth inspired by France's jealousy of the United States—by France's unfortunate need to bite the hand that freed her in no less than two world wars? Is not that the real reason why the new force has to be capable of autonomous action from NATO, and why it will inevitably undermine NATO in due course?
Finally, what will happen if our troops are fully committed to an EU operation, lasting perhaps more than a year, and something happens in another sphere of our interest which requires those troops? Will we be able to withdraw them from the EU operation and send them to the other area, or will they remain under the command of the EU commander and subject to a qualified majority vote for the prosecution of that operation?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the noble Lord has quoted something that he said that Mr Prodi said. There have been an awful lot of quotes put forward from an awful lot of European colleagues in the past few days. As the noble Lord will know if he

867
is quoted in the press as often as some of us, these quotes are not always reliable. I prefer to look at the communiqué that was issued at the end of the Brussels meeting. After all, it is the authoritative voice of what was said. The communiqué states:
"This is a process without unnecessary duplication and it does not involve the establishment of a European army".
It is unequivocal; it is in the communiqué—and it is there for everyone to read.
The noble Lord made tendentious comments about what he described as France's jealousy of the United States. I shall not get involved in speculation about why any country has decided to do what it has done. I know that France—like Germany, the United Kingdom and our other major colleagues in Europe—believes that the United States is right when it says that Europe must pull its weight better over defence. We agree. We agree with the United States and we agree with our European colleagues. We agree because it is the sensible, right and proper thing to do.
The noble Lord asked what would happen if we have committed our troops and we find that we need to commit them elsewhere. What would happen anyway if we had committed our troops and another conflict arose? We would take sensible decisions in the light of the prevailing circumstances. The United Kingdom Government will take those decisions. The noble Lord may shake his head, but that is the position. The decision will be taken by a British Prime Minister answerable to a British Parliament. It would not be done by qualified majority voting. It would be a decision for the Government of this country—and it would be a sensible one.
Lord Shore of Stepney: My Lords, my noble friend will accept—
Lord Burlison: My Lords, the Companion is quite clear. We have reached 20 minutes and we must end the debate.

Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill
6.8 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Bassam of Brighton): 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 Bassam of Brighton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Clause 114 [General restriction on referendum expenses]:
[Amendments Nos. 180 and 181 not moved.]
Clause 115 [Special restrictions on referendum expenses by permitted participants]:
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 182:
Leave out Clause 115.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 182, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 186. Amendment No. 182 seeks to leave out Clause 115 and Amendment No. 186 seeks to leave out Schedule 14.
We return to the question of referendum spending limits. It is no secret that, from the beginning, we have been very doubtful about—indeed we have opposed—the attempt to place spending limits on referendums. We feel that, whatever the referendum may be about, the attempt by the Government to impose these limits is an attempt to rig the expenditure on referendums. I suspect that their principal objective—they never look a year ahead when a month will do—is probably the referendum on the euro. But other referendums are likely. If the Liberal Democrats manage to persuade them, the Government may well hold a referendum on proportional representation.
The Government have chosen to attempt to impose spending limits by focusing on the political parties. That is not sensible. Some parties will be split on issues. Let us take, for example, a referendum on PR. I have no doubt that the Labour Party would be divided on PR, although I am not sure how even or uneven the division would be. I suspect that there are one or two members of the Conservative Party whose view might differ from that of the majority; however, I do not think the split would be anything like that in the Labour Party.
I have asked this question a number of times and I never receive an answer. Nevertheless, it is always worth asking again. On whose side of the argument would the Labour Party's £5 million fall—or would it be divided in some kind of proportion, perhaps based on the views of Members of another place or members of the National Executive Committee? I do not know. But what I do know is, whichever way the £5 million comes down in the Labour Party, many of its members will be very unhappy about their party spending £5 million on a campaign with which they do not agree.
Why should the level of the limit be decided in relation to the votes cast at the previous general election when, by definition, the referendum issue was not decided at the general election? Many of those who vote for a particular party at a general election—because they agree in general terms with its policies on health, home affairs or whatever—may not agree on the issue that the party takes up in a referendum. Yet their votes would count in determining spending on the opposite side to their opinions. That is not a very happy prospect. The point was raised by my noble friend Lord Lamont; and the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, said that it was wholly wrong in principle to base the spending limits on votes cast at the previous general election.
My noble friend Lord Pearson, who is no longer in his place, raised the issue of why the spending limits in a referendum should not be determined by the votes in the most recent European parliamentary elections. Why not? There would seem to be some sense in that if the referendum was not on the euro. I can see that in relation to proportional representation the division of

869
expenditure would be based on the proportion of votes in the previous British general election, but on the euro or any other issue relating to Europe that need not be the case. Let us assume that the Government decide to hold a referendum on matters that emerge from the Nice summit. In that case it is much more logical to base the expenditure on the European elections. The interesting point about the debates that we have had on this issue is that not a single Member of this House has spoken in favour of the Government's proposals—except the rather beleaguered noble Lord the Minister.
We could take as an example on a more limited scale the referendums that we have held. But let us take a referendum on the euro. The main pro-euro parties could spend £9 million to scrap the pound; the Conservative Party could spend only £5 million to save it. What would the Minister have said had he been at the wrong end of that stick all those years ago in the famous "village green" referendum which brought him into politics in the first place? What would his mother have said if she had been on the wrong end of the red rose? That is a jokey way to put it, but it is a serious point. Even the noble Lord admitted, on 24th October, that the Government freely conceded that their proposals would not ensure that each side in a referendum was subject to the same overall limit on expenditure, and that there was no pretence that their proposals were intended to create a level playing fiend in that sense.
If there is any argument about deciding expenditure on a referendum, it ought to be about creating a level playing field. In the Scottish referendum, a level playing field would certainly not have been created, because three of the parties were on one side and only one was on the other. I am sure that my noble and learned friend Lord Fraser, who was involved in that campaign, will agree with me when I say that, frankly, even if there had been a level financial playing field, I doubt whether the result would have been significantly different. However, no one can be in any doubt that if there had been a level playing field in expenditure in the referendum on Wales, the result would have been entirely different. The Government would have lost.
I should be happier if we were attempting to create an equality of arms when it comes to a referendum. However, I understand why the Government do not believe that that can be done. I have examined the issue carefully and I do not think it can be done either. Various groups who may agree on nothing else but the referendum will find it impossible to agree on how much of the cake they will individually spend. It would be almost impossible to keep the "Yes" side inside some global sum and the "No" side inside some global sum. The individual components would be very hard to discipline.
The Neill committee considered this whole question and decided that the task was impossible; it would be very difficult to agree. Any attempt to agree the two global expenditures would probably mean that the various organisations would be fighting like ferrets in a sack. My right honourable friend Sir George Young came to exactly the same conclusion in another place.
870
So I do not think it is possible to look at a theoretically ideal solution: for example, £20 million for the "Yes" side and £20 million for the "No" side; that is the cap; and everyone taking part on one side or the other has to play inside that cap. That is not realistic. Therefore, at this stage I am not coming forward with an amendment to that effect. Our choice is either the option proposed by the Government, or that of the Neill committee—which is that if you cannot succeed in doing something you should not really try, because in the trying you will probably create more anomalies and difficulties.
Late last night, the Minister and I discussed a small amendment of mine. Out of it came the clear conclusion that, in any referendum campaign, if a rich person wants to go abroad, base himself in Brussels, Paris or wherever, and spend his money trying to influence one side or the other, there is absolutely nothing that can be done about it under the provisions of the Bill. At one time that may not have been a productive thing for people to do. But today they could buy advertising space in British newspapers—the noble Lord may tell me that I am wrong about this—and a run a campaign for the "Yes" side or the "No" side. They could most assuredly gain access to the e-world, set up websites and pour their messages in from outside Britain. They could certainly go to a Dutch post office and post papers to us all so that we received papers for one side or the other.
I do not think I am being unfair to the Minister when I say that he had no escape from the logic that I pursued last night, and I do not think that he has received any help from his officials today. On that assumption, I think that my proposition is right. We can forget about limits. I know that the Government are terrified about a Mr Sykes, whom I have never met. Frankly, Mr Sykes can simply move from Yorkshire to Brussels and get on with spending all the money that the Government fear he might spend in a campaign on the euro on what they see to be the wrong side. So all their efforts to put limits on campaigning will be totally set aside—they will be just nonsense.
The Neill committee unanimously considered that there should not be spending limits in referendum campaigns. The committee said that it would be futile, and possibly wrong. I think it would be futile. As I have explained, it would be fine if we could have globals on each side, but it would be wrong to do this in the way the Government intend, especially as we have exposed the fact that not just one coach and a set of horses could be driven through this provision, but coaches and horses. If spending limits cannot be imposed, why try?
I commend to the Government acceptance of my two amendments, which would at least mean that everything would be up front when we had a referendum and the different sides would be spending whatever they could spend and whatever they could find to spend. That is what will actually happen. Otherwise, we in Parliament will be made to look

871
ridiculous because we will have passed a law which was incapable of being enforced. That is a very serious matter. I beg to move.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I support my noble friend. I shall not repeat his arguments and propose to make one point. We are all aware that there is a powerful danger that the reputation for rectitude of our electoral arrangements is increasingly susceptible to attack. My noble friend Lord Mackay gave the example of the referendums on the Scottish and Welsh devolution proposals. I shall not venture into the arguments for and against pre-legislative and post-legislative referendums because they will not add to my point. However, in themselves they certainly open up any government who indulge in them to accusations of a kind that must undermine the reputation for neutrality of the administration of elections and referendums in this country.
As my noble friend made perfectly clear, the arrangements that the government propose in this Bill for the financing of referendums and the control of the way that they are financed will further undermine the reputation for fairness upon which consensus as to those rules must depend. When he responds, I earnestly beseech the Minister to consider whether what is now proposed will deliver yet another hammer blow to what is already a very dangerous tendency.
Because of their actions, those of us who believe that the Government effectively rigged the Welsh referendum—whether intentionally or not—are given an enormous amount of credibility when we make such an accusation. There is no doubt at all that those of us who will be fighting in referendums conducted under the rules proposed by the Government, if they are passed, will be able to say with absolute truth that the rules enabled one side to be given a huge financial advantage. For the reasons that my noble friend explained, that would apply especially in a referendum on the euro.
As the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, pointed out to the Minister in another context only yesterday, the results of elections are increasingly influenced by money. This is not a negligible affair. We are talking about the perceived probity and fairness of referendums, which, like it or lump it—I know that my noble friend Lord Mackay does not like it—are with us in some form or another for the foreseeable future. It would be doing an enormous service to the political life of this country if the Government were able to look us in the eye and say with reason, demonstrably with reason, that they are not passing a law which suggests that they are rigging the conduct of the most likely referendums within the next few years in their favour. If they do so, those of us on the receiving end of that action will be able to cry "Foul!". As we have seen from events in the United States, that does no one any good.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, there was a time when I was young and slim and eager to advance in the law. There was no one's feet at which I would rather sit than those of the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn. I note with interest that the noble Lord
872
is present in the Chamber this evening. I am sure that he has been considering the argument advanced by my noble friend Lord Mackay. I shall have to determine which side of the argument to follow. However, if the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, were to say that my noble friend's argument did not meet with his approval, I suppose that I would retreat. But my deep suspicion is that he understands very well that what my noble friend has said is a serious and important aspect of the issue now under consideration.
If the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, wishes to rise to dispute what I say, I should be very much minded to depart from the position taken by my noble friend. However, I have been watching the noble Lord as this argument has developed and my deep suspicion is that the intellectual integrity for which he is famed is such that he will not find it easy to dispute the argument that my noble friend Lord Mackay has advanced.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord was once a devoted student at some of my lectures. However, he will have to do without one tonight.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, that is a very good response.
We have long known that the Official Opposition were ill at ease with the provision that the Bill makes for spending limits in referendum campaigns, although I still do not fully understand the real reasons behind their objection. However, noble Lords opposite have clearly been in two minds up until now as to what to do about the situation, just as their colleagues were in another place: should they seek to remove spending limits altogether or should they seek to ensure that the limits are aggregate limits biting on each side as a whole in a referendum campaign?
The amendments now before the House answer that question in a curious way. They clearly appear to have come down in favour of removing the spending limits for "permitted participants". I am pleased that the noble Lord has now at least agreed that it would be impossible to impose a global limit on each side in a referendum. That seems to me to be a realistic point of view to have reached. When we debated the matter on earlier occasions there seemed to be a schizophrenia in the mind of the noble Lord and one that he appeared to share, in part, with the noble Lord, Lord Lamont. However, as I understand it, the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, will not be discussed.
I suppose that the case I have to meet in respect of these amendments is as follows. If we cannot control what each side as a whole spends, what is the point of controlling what anyone spends? That is the essence of the argument behind these amendments. In a nutshell, we believe that it is just as useful—and we would say necessary—to control what each participant can spend in a referendum campaign as it is to control what each party can spend in an election campaign. The object served in both cases is to ensure that an organisation, or an individual, does not gain a preponderant voice simply by reason of the money at its, or his, disposal;

873
that is to say, the amount of money in the war chest. That is a useful object and I cannot see why anyone should oppose it—
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. He is always most courteous at Report stage.
Let us take, for example, the euro referendum. If, let us say, the Liberal Democrats supported a "Yes" vote in such a referendum—which I suppose is at least possible—and the Government did the same, their combined funding would, therefore, be greater than that of the only party that opposed the euro; namely, my party. To use the noble Lord's argument, would that not mean that there would be a disproportionate amount of support for a "Yes" vote compared to that for a "No" vote?
6.30 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, certainly that scenario is a possibility; I do not deny that. I am saying that it is better to have some control and some ability to contain the level of expenditure in a referendum of the nature that the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, mentioned rather than none at all. Part of the problem is that the noble Lord's assertion has been predicated on the assumption that the only referendum that is ever likely to see the light of day is a referendum on the euro. That is not necessarily the case. Although the spending limit—
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, whatever the subject of the referendum, there are three major parties in this country. Unless one of them splits its money—I refer to the sums of £5 million and £5 million—to one of those fives will be attached the Liberal Democrats' £3 million. That makes £8 million as opposed to £5 million. That is not a level playing field; it is unbalanced. If the noble Lord wants it to be balanced, he is simply falling at the first fence.
Lord Bach: My Lords, I intervene briefly before we progress too far. Questions for elucidation should be asked at Report stage. Noble Lords know well how to do that. As has already been acknowledged, my noble friend is generous in giving way. However, we all have to adhere to the rules for Report stage.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I have not argued that we are trying to create a level playing field. What I am trying to argue is that we should try to keep a sense of balance and proportion in the way in which we view referendum campaigns. I do not argue that we can create a perfect balance. I have made that point.
Moreover, as I said, the spending limits in the Bill cannot ensure that each side spends the same amount. As I have argued, they will help to do so. They will ensure that the governing factor is the number of organisations ranged on each side and not the amount of money which any one of them, or some of them, have available.
874
Having put the case positively in that way, I now feel entitled to put the negative case too. What is wrong with the spending limits in the Bill? Why are the Official Opposition so opposed to them? How would the Bill be improved if they were left out? I have not heard exactly how the Official Opposition envisage that that would improve the Bill. Here I draw, with due acknowledgement, on points made by the Liberal Democrat spokesman in another place, Mr Stunell. If it is a mischief that there is no overall control of aggregate spending on each side as a whole, one would make the position worse, not better, by removing the limits that the Bill provides.
Official Opposition spokesmen seem to talk as if the limits set by the Bill are in the nature of financial allowances, or perhaps even mandatory spending targets. As we have just heard, they then count up the organisations which they imagine will be ranged on one side and conclude that one side will necessarily have the edge. They may be right or wrong about that; no one can tell. However, the alternative is to allow a single individual or organisation on one side to outspend the totality of individuals or organisations on the other simply because they happen to have more money. We say that that cannot be right. That seems to be the dividing line between the Government and the Official Opposition on this issue.
I have no hesitation in advising the House that Clause 115 and Schedule 14 should stand part of the Bill and that Amendments Nos. 182 and 186 should be rejected. That is where the argument rests. That is the difference between the two sides in the argument. It appears to me that noble Lords opposite want to give up any system of control. I do not believe that that is right. I believe that we should have a system of control. We argue that that system should be the best that we can possibly achieve in the circumstances. That is the Government's case.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, dear, dear, dear! I suppose there is one thing we must be grateful for; namely, that the noble Lord, Lord Bach, managed to prevent the Minister having to answer the question of whether £8 million is more than £5 million. That was a most unconvincing reply. The noble Lord accused me of being schizophrenic when I said that there were two options at earlier stages of the Bill and that we wanted to consider which might be preferable to governments. To base his case on that argument is weak indeed.
I am not schizophrenic. Is the Neill committee schizophrenic? Before we finally leave the issue I remind the noble Lord of what the Neill committee stated at paragraph 12.46 of its report. It stated:
"It appears to us that under these circumstances it would be impracticable to try to control campaign spending. The number of individuals and organisations involved would often be too large. The time-scale would often be too short … The administrative apparatus required would resemble one of Heath Robinson's most outlandish contraptions—and would almost certainly not work".
That is fine. Last night I think that I persuaded the Minister—because he did not answer me—that money would be spent from abroad over which the

875
Government had absolutely no control. Here we have an attempt to impose limits which is, in my view, flawed—the Minister does not think that it is flawed — because it would not be equal. If the object is to achieve equality of arms, and the Government's proposals do not achieve that, surely the Government have failed in that regard. The Minister's answer seemed to be that the Government had failed to do that but wanted to place some controls on individual participants. The fact that—this is beginning to resemble the language used on the previous Bill we discussed—the balance may be heavily in favour of one side and not in favour of the other side at all is something that the Government will leave to one side.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am not saying that we can achieve equality of arms. I have not argued that this evening. I am saying that we need to have some controls on the arms race. I accept that there is a difference there, but I argue that we need to have at least some controls. That is the Government's position.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, but the other side of the argument on election spending is that we should have equality of arms between the two main parties. The Conservative Party and the Labour Party should have the same limits. It seems to me that equality of arms involves having the same limits. However, I leave that point because clearly the Minister has not even begun to address it. It is rather like sailing on the ocean in the fog in that one does not see the ship that passes five miles away, let alone worry about it. The Minister seems to take that view.
The point is that these limits could not be implemented. The Minister has not addressed the point that he made last night. It appears that, for the Minister, last night's proceedings did not take place. However, they did take place. I know that because I was present until a late hour. I have read the proceedings in Hansard. The Minister said rather amusingly that I was in danger of becoming an ace loophole spotter, a sort of green ink merchant of the loophole territory. That suggested to me that I had found a fairly large loophole in the Bill. He did not deny that for a minute.
Here we have a situation where the Minister is saying, "This is the best we can do and we think that you should accept it". If it cannot be implemented in reality, we should not pass legislation. This matter is important. I shall not attempt to argue my case further because I shall not engage the Minister in any discussion. He will simply stick by his brief. I am tempted to try what I used to call the "Hollis trick" which is to lean over and say to the Minister involved, "You are the Minister. They are the officials. Forget that the brief states 'Reject' and change that to 'Accept' if you think that the argument is worth it". I do not even think that that will work with the Minister. Therefore I seek the opinion of the House.
6.39 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 182) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 80; Not-Contents, 154.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Astor of Hever, L.

Lucas, L.

Attlee, E.

Lyell, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Blackwell, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Blatch, B.

Mancroft, L.

Boardman, L.

Marlesford, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Marsh, L.

Byford, B.

Monro of Langholm, L.

Campbell of Cray, L.

Monson, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Coe, L.

Moynihan, L.

Colwyn, L.

Naseby, L.

Courtown, E.

Noakes, B.

Cranborne, V.

Northesk, E. [Teller]

Crathorne, L.

Norton of Louth, L.

Crickhowell, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Onslow, E.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Palmer, L.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Elton, L.

Peel, E.

Ferrers, E.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Forsyth of Drumlean, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Rawlings, B.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Reay, L.

Glentoran, L.

Renton, L.

Goschen, V.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Rogan, L.

Greenway, L.

Sandwich, E.

Hanham, B.

Seccombe, B. [Teller]

Harris of High Cross, L.

Selsdon, L.

Henley, L.

Stewartby, L.

Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Hooper, B.

Taylor of Warwick, L.

Howe, E.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Howell of Guildford, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Kingsland, L.

Trumpington, B.

Knight of Collingtree, B.

Vivian, L.

Laird, L.

Wilcox, B.

Lawson of Blaby, L.

L. Young, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Addington, L.

Burlison, L.

Ahmed, L.

Carter, L.[Teller]

Alderdice, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Amos, B.

Clement-Jones, L.

Andrews, B.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Bach, L.

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

Barker, B.

Crawley, B.

Barnett, L.

David, B.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Berkeley, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Billingham, B.

Desai, L.

Blackstone, B.

Dixon, L.

Blease, L.

Donoughue, L.

Bradshaw, L.

Dubs, L.

Bragg, L.

Elder, L.

Brennan, L.

Elis-Thomas, L.

Brett, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Evans of Watford, L.

877

Ezra, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Falkland, V.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B

Filkin, L.

Mitchell, L.

Fyfe of Fairfield, L.

Molloy, L.

Gale, B.

Morgan, L.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Goldsmith, L.

Newby, L.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Nicol, B.

Goudie, B.

Northover, B.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L.

Grabiner, L.

Phillips of Sudbury, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Greaves, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Greengross, B.

Rea, L.

Grenfell, L.

Redesdale, L.

Hamwee, B.

Rennard, L.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Renwick of Clifton, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Richard, L.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Harrison, L.

Roper, L.

Hayman, B.

Russell, E.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Russell-Johnston, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Sandberg, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Hoyle, L.

Scott of Needham Market, B.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Shore of Stepney, L.

Islwyn, L.

Shutt of Greetland, L.

Jacobs, L.

Simon, V.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Jay of Paddington, B. (Lord Privy Seat)

Smith of Leigh, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Jeger, B.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Taverne, L.

Kennedy of The Shaws, B.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Kirkhill, L.

Tomlinson, L.

Layard, L.

Tordoff, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Turnberg, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Uddin, B.

Lipsey, L.

Varley, L.

Lockwood, B.

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Walmsley, B.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller]

Warner, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

Whitaker, B.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Whitty, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Wilkins, B.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

McNally, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Maddock, B.

Young of Old Scone, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
6.48 p.m.
[Amendment No. 183 not moved.]
Schedule 14 [Limits on referendum expenses by permitted participants]:
[Amendments Nos. 184 to 186 not moved.]
Clause 116 [Control of donations to permitted participants]:
[Amendment No. 187 not moved.]
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 188:
Page 84, line 33, at end insert —
("() Notwithstanding anything in Schedule 15 or Part IV, a permitted participant shall be prohibited fromaccepting during a referendum period any donation from a permissible donor of the type specified in section 52(2)(c).").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have to take cognisance of the last Division and the fact that we now have the rigged expenditure provision in the Bill and are unlikely to be able to take it out. I now want to consider how that works and to tease from the Minister that some twists in it are perhaps less than fair and honest.
In another place at the Second Reading of the Bill the Home Secretary said:
"The Liberal Democrats are offered generous spending limits in the Bill, but it is a racing certainty that the party will not be able to raise money to the level of the spending limit. So to argue that spending by the Labour and Liberal Democrat parties will be nearly equal because both parties will be able to spend up to a maximum amount fails to take into account the capacity of parties to raise money up to the maximum".—[Official Report, Commons, 10/1/00; col. 38.]
I remind the Liberal Democrats what their friend the Home Secretary thinks about their ability to raise £3 million.
Let us assume that after the next election the Liberal Democrats still have a £3 million limit. Clause 52(2)(c), which I have already tried to delete, allows one political party to donate to another. I assume that the Labour Party would have more than £5 million available to spend on any referendum on the euro. To maximise the pro-euro spending, Labour would be able to give some of its surplus to its Liberal Democrat allies. We all know from Mr Ashdown's diaries about the close relationship between the two parties. The Minister admitted as much on 24th October, when he said:
"The noble Lord"—
I think that that means me —
"clearly had in his sights the possibility that in a referendum on the euro the Labour Party, having set aside £5 million for its own campaign, might contribute to the campaign of the Liberal Democrats. I entirely accept that that is a theoretical possibility. … Such a move would not necessarily be contrary to the letter of the provisions in Part VII".—[Official Report, 24/10/00; col. 185.]
In Committee, I proposed a ban on parties donating to other parties to stop them acting in concert to take advantage of the limits—I was going to call them rigged limits but I shall say that they are slightly out of balance. The Minister had concerns about that, pointing out to me that the Labour and Co-operative parties might want to donate to each other. As we all know, they are pretty well one party. I do not know why money should go from one party to another, but I have conceded that point to the Minister. He has got one up there.
Later on in Committee I proposed a ban on parties using money given by other parties to fund referendum campaigns. The Minister told me that it was difficult, if not impossible, to control the uses to which particular money was put. I therefore concede that point for the purposes of today's debate. The amendment would

879
allow the Labour Party to receive as much money as it could from the Co-operative Party—or, indeed, to give as much money to the Liberal Democrats, such is my generosity. It would not even stop them using that money for a referendum campaign. To that extent the amendment is not nearly as watertight as I would like. However, it would stop parties donating to other parties during the period of a referendum. That would be the time when a political party might find that it was going to underspend because it could not raise enough money and would then go cap in hand to its wealthier cousin—in this case the Labour Party—and say, "Help. We thought that we would get enough money to fund the campaign but we are not going to get near our maximum. Can you top us up?" The amendment would stop that.
The amendment meets all the concerns that the Minister raised in earlier debates. He can hardly plead in his defence that it is not watertight because on the previous amendment he said that it did not matter that the Bill was not watertight. He cannot change sides on the issue of watertight provisions.
As the amount of money that a party is allowed to spend is related to its vote at the previous election, it is a bit odd that parties should be able to pool their money when they spend it, as if their separate votes did not matter.
The euro is not the only issue. The problem could arise during a referendum on any issue. If we are to have limits—the Minister has clearly got his way on that—they should be as fair in their operation as possible. The scenario that I have outlined would not be fair. I accept that the amendment would not entirely prevent unfairness, but it would go a long way to prevent it during a referendum campaign. I beg to move.
Lord Richard: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down—I know that he has, but let us assume that metaphorically he is still on his feet—I should like to put one point to him. I listened to him with great interest. His complaint is not that the Labour Party might donate money to the Liberal Party but that the Liberal Party would not accept money from his party if he wanted to give some. The noble Lord seems to assume that there is a permanent alliance between the Liberals over there and the Labour Party over here and that we should be treated as one party. On the voting record of the past Session, that is not axiomatic.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I think that I probably now have to interrupt the noble Lord's speech before he sits down. If the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party were on the same side in a referendum and the Labour Party were on the opposite side, the Bill would allow the same scenario. Even in those circumstances, it would not be fair.
Lord McNally: My Lords, when I attended school dances, I used to look enviously at the prettiest girl in
880
the room, who sat there smugly knowing full well that all the boys wanted to dance with her. I am beginning to feel like that girl this evening.
Lord Monson: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that, as the Bill stands, the Labour Party could give money to parties with which it is normally at loggerheads, such as the Scottish nationalists and the Welsh nationalists, for the specific purpose of winning a referendum vote on the euro?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, has described his amendment perfectly, so I shall not repeat its intent. His particular concern is that, in addition to spending up to its own limit, the Labour Party might contribute to another political party's campaign. I have been in the Labour Party for 20 years or so. I do not have the longest membership of the Labour Party, but 20 years is not a short time. I have been involved in some pretty hairy debates in that time. I remember the ghastly years when we had the militant tendency in our midst I also remember some rather more halcyon years. I cannot remember any Labour Party general management committee or branch meeting debating the merest possibility that we mightwant to make a donation to another political party. I have heard some pretty weird debates in the Labour Party during that time, as well as some interesting and exciting ones, but I have never heard anyone argue that we might want to give money to the Liberals. That would have been a very strange argument. I am puzzled by the noble Lord's attempt to tie us in with our friends on the Liberal Democrat Benches at this stage in our development as a political party. Technically the noble Lord, Lord Monson, is right, but practically what he suggests is a non-runner.
I do not like to say so, but the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, seems to be having some good fun with his amendment and making a slightly mischievous point. The amendment emerged because he did not seem to understand earlier in our debates that some of us in the Labour Party could also be members of the Co-operative Party. I have two party cards. One tells me that I am a member of the Co-operative Party and the other tells me that I am a member of the Labour Party. That is the eventuality that the Bill permits. It is not about trying to top up another party with extra resources in the event of a referendum on the euro. The noble Lord needs to be disabused of that.
We have had the argument before. I am not convinced that the noble Lord is being entirely serious. Technicallyhe is right that there is a possibility, but in reality it will not happen.
7 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I was interested to see the Minister brandish membership

881
cards for the Labour Party and the Co-operative Party. This is the Minister who, about 30 minutes ago, accused me of being schizophrenic.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the two are entirely compatible.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am glad about that.
This has been an interesting debate. The noble Lord has often said at the end of debates that the point that I have made is right but that it is so theoretical that it would not happen. In my view, to say, "Yes, there is a loophole; yes, there is a way round it; yes, there is a way through it. But don't worry, it is only theoretical", is an extraordinarily unsatisfactory way to leave legislation. Perhaps I may suggest to the noble Lord that he talks to some of his colleagues on the Treasury team. They will tell him that they spend most of their waking hours trying to ensure that even the most theoretical loophole in finance legislation has been closed; otherwise, a whole army of accountants will lead a whole army of people through that loophole. That is true in relation to finance legislation and it is also true in relation to all other legislation.
This is not a satisfactory position. However, I shall not divide the House on this amendment. I say simply that I shall take it as a statement on behalf of the Labour Party that there is no circumstance under which it would pass money to the Liberal Democrat Party. That is what the Minister has just said. I shall rest my case on that if at any time in the future an attempt is made to do what I have theoretically suggested is possible. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 189 not moved.]
Schedule 15 [Control of donations to permitted participants]:
Lord Bach Lord Bach moved Amendments Nos. 190 and 191:
Page 187, line 25, leave out ("(2)(d)") and insert ("(1)(d)").
Page 187, line 27, leave out ("(2)(e)") and insert ("(1)(e)").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 192 not moved.]
Lord Bach Lord Bach moved Amendments Nos. 193 and 194:
Page 189, leave out lines 38 to 47.
Page 189, line 47, at end insert —
("(2A) For the purposes of this Schedule, any relevant donation received by a permitted participant which is an exempt trust donation shall be regarded as a relevant donation received by the permitted participant from a permissible donor.
(2B) But, for the purposes of this Schedule, any relevant donation received by a permitted participant from a trustee of any property (in his capacity as such) which is not —

(a) an exempt trust donation, or

882

(b) a relevant donation transmitted by the trustee to the permitted participant on behalf of beneficiaries under the trust who are —

(i) persons who at the time of its receipt by the permitted participant are permissible donors falling within section 52(2), or

(ii) the members of an unincorporated association which at that time is such a permissible donor,

shall be regarded as a relevant donation received by the permitted participant from a person who is not such a permissible donor.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 195:
Page 190, line 6, leave out ("not less") and insert ("more").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Bach Lord Bach moved Amendment No. 196:
Page 191, line 16, leave out ("(2) to (10)").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 197 not moved.]
Clause 117 [Returns as to referendum expenses]:
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 198:
Page 85, line 16, leave out ("and") and insert ("or").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 122 [Restriction on publication etc. of promotional material by central and local government etc.]:
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 199:
Page 87, line 30, leave out ("relevant") and insert ("referendum").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 199, I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 204 and 205. I tabled this amendment in Committee. I and my noble friends want to return to it simply because we did not leave it in a happy position. Amendment No. 204 is consequential on Amendment No. 199, and Amendment No. 205 is an attempt at some form of compromise.
I keep trying to find a form of compromise with the Government but I keep getting knocked back by the noble Lord, Lord Bassam. I cannot really complain because two or three of my amendments have been accepted. However, I put forward a compromise in the Bill that we dealt with earlier today and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, accepted it. Perhaps the noble Lord might follow his noble and learned friend's example.
This group of amendments deals with the "purdah period" which will apply to most, but not all, campaigning activity by the government of the day during the last 28 days of a referendum campaign. We had an interesting debate about this in Committee and there were also some good and interesting debates in the other place.
Essentially, the question is this: is it right and fair for the government of the day to be allowed to use unlimited amounts of public money to campaign for

883
one side of the argument in a referendum, especially in the context of the spending restrictions that we have just agreed which will apply to everyone else who campaigns in that referendum?
In its report, the Neill committee took a very dim view of government participation in referendum campaigns. It cited the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish referendums held by this Government as having been influenced by partisan propaganda issued at the taxpayers' expense. It rejected that approach completely and said at paragraph 12.41 of the report:
"We believe it is perfectly appropriate for the government of the day to state its views and for members of the Government to campaign vigorously during referendum campaigns, just as in general election campaigns. But we also believe that, just as in general election campaigns, neither taxpayers' money nor the permanent government machine—civil servants, official cars, the Government Information Service, and so forth—should be used to promote the interests of the Government side of the argument".
At paragraph 12.44, the committee concluded:
"We believe that it is extraordinarily difficult, if not impossible, for the government of the day to offer purely objective and factual information in the course of a referendum campaign. We believe governments should not participate in referendum campaigns in this manner … The government of the day in future referendums should, as a government, remain neutral and should not distribute at public expense literature, even purportedly factual literature, setting out or otherwise promoting its case".
That is pretty clear. However, I believe that it probably set alarm bells ringing in Millbank, the Home Office and even Downing Street. Therefore, we have a Bill which does not reflect those sentiments at all. In fact, it allows for the situation that the Neill committee said should be prohibited; namely, government propaganda issued at public expense during referendum campaigns.
I admit that the Government have provided for the 28-day purdah period in the Bill, although to what extent it is a real purdah we shall examine in the next group of amendments. However, the referendum campaign can last for up to six months. The political parties and other campaign organisations will be subject to strict rules on expenditure for the whole of that period, whereas the government of the day can spend what it likes for up to five out of a possible six months.
I know that the Neill committee welcomed the 28-day period. I know that it was welcomed by my right honourable friend John MacGregor in another place. It is possible that the committee did not imagine that, given what they did in the devolution referendums, the Government would ever have agreed to any purdah period at all. Perhaps the committee was pleasantly surprised. I am not sure whether the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, is intending to intervene in this debate and to give us his views.
However, what the Government have done clearly deviates from the spirit and the letter of the Neill recommendations. I also consider it to be grossly unfair and yet another attempt to rig future referendums. For five months, when other organisations, including the political parties, are subject to spending restrictions, the government of the day can issue unlimited amounts of partisan material
884
at public expense, use the government press machine and take out adverts in newspapers, all with taxpayers' money and all designed to influence the outcome of the referendum.
I believe that purdah should apply during the whole referendum period. I consider that to be fair and equitable. That is what Amendments Nos. 199 and 204 seek to achieve. In Committee, the Minister argued that we could not apply the purdah during the whole referendum period because that could also cover the passage of the Bill through Parliament. I do not believe that it is beyond the wit of the Government's draftsmen and the Minister's officials to devise wording to meet that point. It was a fig leaf provided for the Minister to cover his embarrassment.
In a spirit of generosity, I have tried to meet the point with Amendment No. 205. It is not my preferred option but it would at least limit the scope for abuse. The purdah period would be either 28 days or half the referendum period, whichever was longer. That would at least mean that for half the referendum period the Government could not distribute propaganda, but it would not affect the passage of the Bill through Parliament. In any event, I believe that proposal to be better than what is in the Bill.
I remind the noble Lords, Lord McNally, Lord Rennard and Lord Goodhart, that in another place the Liberal Democrat Front Bench spokesman, Mr Stunell, whom I have quoted before, supported our call for the purdah period to be increased. He said:
"I would not be averse to an extension of the 28 days … I come part way with the hon. Member for Beaconsfield on bringing forward the 28-day deadline. I am sympathetic to that view". — [Official Report, Commons, 16/2/00; col. 1054].
However, I believe that Mr Stunell completely misunderstood the effect of the amendments, which are the same as those before your Lordships today because he thought, mistakenly, that they would remove the purdah period entirely rather than extend it to the whole referendum period which would he their actual effect. I know that noble Lords on the Liberal Benches, if they speak, will not make that mistake with regard to the amendments before us today.
This is an important issue. We are trying to ensure that future referendums are not rigged. The Government are going against the spirit and letter of the Neill report in that respect. The amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Willoughby de Broke is thoroughly sensible. If it is not acceptable to the Government and to your Lordships, I commend my compromise Amendment No. 205 to the House. I beg to move.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I rise to support my noble friend in what he said. I have only one question for the Government. Referring back to earlier remarks I made today, when the Minister replies, perhaps he will address himself to what is perceived on many sides of the House to be a real and growing danger; namely, that the equity with which referendums will be conducted in the future will be as liable to challenge as the Welsh and Scottish referendums were liable to challenge.

885
If that is a growing worry, which I assure him it is—not only within this House but elsewhere—and if it is a worry which has been acknowledged by the noble Lord, Lord Neill, and his committee, do the Government also acknowledge that and are they prepared to answer it in detail? If not, why not?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the Official Opposition have put their names to two proposals which are alternatives to each other as well as to what is in the Bill. Amendments Nos. 199 and 204 would remove the idea of a "relevant period" from Clause 122. On the other hand, Amendment No. 205 would retain the expression but redefine it.
The effect of the first two amendments would be that the period during which the government of the day cannot spend money on promotional material would not be the 28 days prior to the poll but a longer period, beginning, in most cases, when an order is made. The order would normally be made around the time of the introduction or Second Reading of a Bill for a referendum. I acknowledge that it is at that earlier point that spending controls on referendum participants will begin to bite.
The alternative amendment, Amendment No. 205, would have the effect of taking back the commencement of the embargo to a point half way between when the order is made and when the poll is held. I wish to persuade the House that neither of the amendments is necessary or desirable and that the right course is to stick at 28 days.
The mischief with which the Bill seeks to deal here, if "mischief' is not too strong a word, is of a government putting round partisan material at the public's expense at the time when the electorate is thinking about the issue and making up its mind how to vote. The Neill committee thought that the distinction between factual and promotional material, which had been relied on in some cases, was unsound. We do not necessarily accept that that was so in the cases referred to, but we came to the conclusion that the right response was "no contest".
The Neill committee did not itself propose a precise time-limit. But we concluded that what was needed was a simple, straightforward rule; and in another place a member of the Neill committee, Mr MacGregor, acknowledged, as the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, said, that the Government's proposal met the committee's point.
One important thing to recognise about the proposal in the Bill—and I dare say we will come back to this on the next group of amendments—is how far-reaching it is. It is not simply an embargo on partisan or overtly promotional material. The prohibition applies equally to general information and to material which deals in any way with issues raised by the referendum question.
That being so, it would simply be unreasonable to apply the embargo to the period in which the Bill for the referendum is actually going through Parliament. During that time, the government of the day are not
886
acting as a campaign group but as a government. They are putting a proposal to Parliament which they must explain and back up in the usual way. One might as well say that a government cannot issue material in connection with any Bill during the period running up to a dissolution of Parliament and a general election, because in due course they will want to take credit for the legislation that they have carried through and stand on policies which it contains.
For those reasons, we are opposed to both of the alternative schemes now put forward. Amendment No. 205 is, obviously, milder in its effects than Amendments Nos. 199 and 204. But it is scarcely less objectionable, because it still involves the risk of preventing the government of the day from acting as a government at the time when they have every right— and some would say a duty—to do exactly that govern.
The point has been made, in favour of the amendments, that spending limits for referendum campaign groups will be effective from the beginning of the "referendum period" so why should the government not be subject to similar restrictions? I shall leave aside the obvious and perhaps rather crude point that, if the Official Opposition had their way, there would be no spending limits. But I will make two other points. First, although the "referendum period" will begin quite early on—as it has to if the electoral commission is to designate umbrella organisations and so on—the actual political campaign will not really get under way until some time later. Whichever party then forms the Opposition, for example, will no doubt be concentrating its energies at the earlier stage on opposing the Bill in Parliament.
Secondly, there is no real equivalence between a spending limit and an absolute embargo. The embargo is not a spending restriction but a statement of what is or is not the proper role of a government during a referendum campaign. And by referendum campaign we mean, as the Neill committee did, the campaign in the country and not the process of a government taking a Bill through Parliament.
We have put a strong, perhaps even generous, self-denying ordinance into the Bill in response to the Neill report. The thought has crossed my mind, not for the first time on this Bill, that perhaps the Opposition cannot believe their luck. They are clearly, by putting forward alternative amendments, testing how far the House is prepared to go. The Government's clear view is that the Bill is perfectly satisfactory on this point and that no amendment needs to be made.
The noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, asked whether we are worried about inequities which might occur in referendum campaigns. In a sense, what I have said addresses that issue. Of course, we recognise that it is an issue of concern and it was an issue of concern for the Neill committee. For those reasons, we have constructed the framework which we have placed on the face of the Bill. That is the Government's view.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I noted that the Minister said that those restrictions on

887
government were neither necessary nor desirable. They may not be desirable from the Government's point of view but I believe that they are extremely necessary from the point of view of having fair referendums. That is what we are supposed to be achieving.
I understand the point about Amendments Nos. 199 and 204: that during that period, it is possible that the legislation might still be going through Parliament. But I do not believe that that criticism can be levelled at Amendment No. 205, which is my compromise attempt to find a way to get round the Government's problem. Therefore, I am much more in favour of the compromise in Amendment No. 205. Whatever the noble Lord says, it remains a fact that everybody bar the Government will have some limit placed on their expenditure. For a fair amount of time, the Government will have unlimited expenditure; and it is expenditure which they do not have to raise from the people who want to vote "yes" or "no". They will raise that money from the taxpayers—from those who want to vote "yes" and those who want to vote "no". That is what is unfair about it.
While I shall withdraw Amendment No. 199 and not move Amendment No. 204, when we come to Amendment No. 205, I shall test the opinion of the House.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 200 not moved.]
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Ampthill): My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, will be aware that, if this amendment is agreed to, he cannot move Amendment No. 202. He has pre-empted himself.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 201:
Page 87, line 42, leave out paragraph (d).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we shall see how we get on. If the success of this amendment pre-empts the other amendment, I shall be more than happy for the Government to accept this in order to stop me dividing later on.
Amendment No. 201 is in the same vein and it is grouped with Amendment No. 202. We have just discussed the purdah period. This amendment is a variation inside the purdah period. There are things that the Government will be able to do throughout the referendum campaign, including the 28-day purdah period. The first three of these exceptions have attracted little comment. Indeed, they seem for the most part to be unexceptionable exceptions, though I am a little concerned about whether the Government may prompt people to seek information in order to be able to issue more propaganda under Clause 122(3)(a).
The fourth and final exception to the issuing of referendum propaganda at public expense is the issue of press notices. The drafting of Clause 122(1) allows such exempt press notices to contain anything that is listed in that subsection, including putting arguments for or against answers to the referendum questions. That has sparked some debate in your Lordships'
888
House and in another place. Government Ministers will be able to issue government press releases and presumably use the government information service and government press officers to campaign, right up to polling day, for or against a particular referendum option.
In Committee on 24th October, I specifically asked the Minister whether the government of the day would be allowed, on the basis of such press notices, to use the government information service, civil servants and government press officers to brief the press during the purdah period. He failed to respond. I would like him to do so today.
There is also an issue about whether these documents will be made available to the public at large, perhaps via the Internet. The Minister will know that his own press releases, those of other Home Office Ministers and those of all government Ministers are placed on the Internet for all to see. To that extent, they are not press notices. They are in fact public notices. In Committee, the Minister said:
"A 'press notice' is a notice to the press, not to the general public".—[Official Report, 24/10/00; col. 208.]
I will remind him of that again, because I think it is very important. He said:
"A 'press notice' is a notice to the press, not to the general public".—[Official Report, 24/10/00; col. 208.]
That is not quite true. The definition has been overtaken by events in the intervening period. I have little doubt that the Minister and his officials will have read in detail the recent judgments of the noble and learned Lords, Lord Bingham of Cornhill and Lord Steyn, in the case of Turkington and Others v. Times Newspapers Limited (Northern Ireland), which were delivered in this House on 2nd November, a week after the Minister made his statement.
From the look on the Minister's face, I suspect that he has not had his attention drawn to that case. The noble and learned Lords clearly stated in those judgments that a meeting which was described by its organisers as a "press conference" fell within the definition of a "public meeting" in the Northern Ireland Defamation Act 1955. In his judgment, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bingham of Cornhill, said:
"A press conference, attended by members of the press and perhaps other members of the public, has become an important vehicle for promoting the discussion and furtherance of matters of public concern, and there is nothing in the nature of such a conference which takes it outside the ordinary meaning of 'public meeting'".
If, as the noble and learned Lords and the Judicial Committee of this House have said in their judgments, a "press conference" falls within the ordinary meaning of a "public meeting", cannot a "press notice" also be a "public notice", especially if it is put on the Internet for all to see? I am sure that the Minister's brief has been revised in the light of that judgment. I hope that he will address the point.
I am extremely suspicious of this provision in the Bill and how it will be used. I would prefer to delete press notices from the exception. However, I recognise that the Minister may well deploy some argument

889
against that. As usual, therefore, I have a compromise amendment in reserve. If the Minister believes that there are circumstances in which press notices may be issued entirely innocently during the purdah period, Amendment No. 202 would stop the issue of openly partisan press notices which attempt to influence the referendum result.
In this group of amendments, I have not only met the Minister's concerns but I have anticipated that he may raise new concerns and have tried to cover them. However, my concerns remain. I believe that my case has been hugely advanced by the judgments delivered in your Lordships' House. I look forward to what the Minister has to say about them. I believe that this point is as serious as the point relating to extending the purdah period. In fact, it may be more serious. I am aware that, via the Internet, government departments daily issue many press notices which could be openly reported. Anybody can access these websites—that is what they are there for. It seems to me that, in those circumstances, the Government will be communicating directly with the public. I believe that stopping this during the purdah period may be even more important than extending the purdah period. I beg to move.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, I recognise that much of the argument that I propose to advance in relation to Amendment No. 203— Is this the amendment that we are on?
Lord Bach: My Lords, I thought the noble Lord wanted to speak to this group of amendments.
Lord Marsh: No, my Lords.
Lord Bach: My Lords, I apologise to him.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, then it would probably be sensible if I did not pursue Amendment No. 203. I am deeply disappointed with the reaction of the Government. Nonetheless, on second thoughts, I think I will pursue it—I am taken rather by surprise by this turn of events—because I believe that this is a major and fundamental issue.
Lord Bach: My Lords, Clause 122 is designed simply to deal with the point raised by the Neill committee that the government of the day should not circulate material at the public expense in the run up to an election. As we understand it, it is not designed to prevent the government of the day from operating as such or from expressing views. The clause clearly contemplates the possibility of the government of the day responding to inquiries about their views and policies. As I understand it, no one challenges that. If an issue arises on which the Government, and not merely the party of government, are challenged, they ought to be able to respond. The press notice provides one means of doing so. It would be absurd if, in those circumstances, all the Government could say was "No comment".
890
The Official Opposition have tabled two alternative proposals, and the noble Lord has spoken with that in mind. The effect of his Amendment No. 201 would be to remove the protection that paragraph (d) gives to press notices as against the general prohibition on the issue of material which Clause 122 sets up. His Amendment No. 202 would make it possible for some sorts of press notices to be issued, but not others. We believe that he is wrong in both amendments.
By Clause 122, we attempt to prevent a government from seeking to push, at the public's expense, material which relates in any way to a referendum campaign. We do not seek to prevent the government of the day from operating as governments do. Governments deal with issues as they come up. They express opinions, just like oppositions and other parties. For example, the clause does not prevent a government from responding to inquiries, including inquiries about policy. No one seems unhappy about that. If a government simply issue a succession of press notices which do nothing except repeat their view on the referendum question, two things will happen. First, they will be in breach of the internal government rules, because they will be using the government machine to promote a political object. Secondly, they will make themselves quite absurd, and the press will have a great deal of fun with it. There could be circumstances in which issuing a press notice might be reasonable and right for a government to do, but in which either of the amendments before the House, if passed, would prevent them from doing.
Let us suppose, for example, that in the run-up to a referendum on the single currency some violent movement occurs in the international value of the euro; or perhaps a statesman abroad makes a statement about the issue which seems to put a different light on the matter from what the Government had been saying. The question arises whether it still makes sense for the United Kingdom to join the single currency. The Opposition would gleefully seize on the point and capitalise on it, and there would be nothing to prevent them from so doing. But the government of the day, if either of the amendments is carried, would be unable to address the issue. They would be required to refer the matter to their party to deal with, notwithstanding that the issue may be a matter on which only the Government have the necessary information.
We think that that is a recipe for evasion and subterfuge. Let us suppose that a journalist rings up to ask if there will be a press notice commenting on what has occurred. If either of the amendments is carried, there are two possible answers. The first is, "You must ask my party, and of course I will be in touch with them straightaway to supply them with the answer". The other is, "We can't issue a notice, but if you ask for our answer, we can give it, and if any of your colleagues ask for it, we can give it to them too. Please spread the word around. We will increase the number of press officers to answer their calls".
Amendment No. 202, the milder amendment to which the noble Lord spoke, is not an answer to that problem. It simply would not make sense in some cases

891
for the government of the day to give out information and fail to respond to the obvious question of whether the new event changes its view. If we attempted to put such a limitation in place, we would be recreating precisely the kind of distinction between factual and promotional material which the committee chaired by the noble and learned Lord thought unsound.
I end by repeating that Clause 122 is meant to serve a specific purpose in a specific way: to prevent a government of any colour from putting material through people's post-boxes. It is not meant to prevent them from answering as a government for their policies and views, and I do not believe that any realistic party would want such a restriction. We believe that both Amendments Nos. 201 and 202 should be withdrawn.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I notice a total and utter failure to address the question I posed about press conferences and press notices in the light of the judgment of your Lordships' House, just as if that did not matter or exist. I am staggered.
Lord Bach: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving way. We heard exactly what was said by the noble Lord about the important decision made by the Judicial Committee of this House. However, I do not believe that anything I have said goes against the principle or spirit of that judgment. We understand the view taken by that court in relation to press notices. Nothing I have said goes against the principle in that case.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I believe that the noble Lord does not read the press notices issued by the Government. If he did, he would see that most of them have the spin which the Government want them to have. Few are entirely factual; they all have a spin. Frankly, if they did not have a spin I would be amazed. It is not just this Government which do that; all governments do it.
As to the fact that during the purdah period the Government will not be able to put notices into post-boxes, perhaps I may say that they will. The new post-boxes are e-mail addresses and the website. People will be able to access the website and receive notices just as if such notices had come through their front door.
Lord Bach: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord. I know that this is Report stage; I am the one who mentioned that earlier. However, I should have dealt with this point. As I am advised, press notices on the Internet would, in any event, be covered by Clause 122 (3)(a), which I invite noble Lords to look at. It states that subsection (2) does not apply to:
"material made available to persons in response to specific requests for information or to persons specifically seeking access to it".
A person specifically needs to seek access to a website. Perhaps I may point out to the noble Lord that he has never said that he is not content with that provision.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I now wonder what purdah is about. To say that, if I open up a website to look at information contained on it, I am somehow seeking the information and that it is not coming to me is, frankly, splitting hairs in the modern world. I think that many companies would not view that as the way in which people use their websites. People browse at information which then comes to them. In any case, that does not address the problem of a press conference.
However, much more worrying was the example given by the noble Lord. To carry on with the referendum theme, if a foreign government, perhaps the Government of Denmark where the people have said "no", were to issue a press release stating, "We very much hope that the British people will also say 'no' for these reasons", the Government during the purdah period would feel free to put out a press notice, call a press conference and all the paraphernalia that happens, in order to counter the statement made by a Minister in Denmark.
I do not see any problem with the Government simply saying, "We are in purdah on this. This is a 28-day period. You will have to go down the road to talk to Millbank", or talk to the Liberals, the "yes" campaign or whatever. I see no problem with that. The press are not daft. They would understand what was happening and that some fair rules were being played.
The example given by the noble Lord makes me feel that purdah will be a farce. The Government will use all the machinery of their press office to carry on as they did before the purdah started. I believe that this is a serious matter, to such an extent that I shall test the opinion of the House, not on my compromise—clearly, that is brushed aside—but on the main amendment.
Lord Monson: My Lords, before the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, tries to put his amendment, perhaps I may suggest that it would be better to concentrate upon Amendment No. 203, which is not open to the same challenge as the previous two amendments, and therefore has more chance of success.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, as the noble Lord has intervened, perhaps I may simply say that I can count and I noticed the last Division. I do not think his argument holds a great deal of weight. I am more appalled at what I have just heard about this item on press releases than I am about the purdah issue, and I was pretty appalled at that. I beg to move.
7.38 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 201) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 42; Not-Contents, 124.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Ampthill, L.

Lyell, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Blackwell, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Blatch, B.

Mar, C.

Byford, B.

Marsh, L.

Carnegy of Low, B.

Moynihan, L.

Colwyn, L.

Noakes, B.

Courtown, E.

Norton of Louth, L.

Cranborne, V.

Onslow, E.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Elton, L.

Renton, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Geddes, L.

Rogan, L.

Glentoran, L.

Seccombe, B. [Teller]

Gray of Contin, L.

Selsdon, L.

Harris of Peckham, L.

Stewartby, L.

Henley, L.[Teller]

Strathclyde, L.

Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Hunt of Wirral, L.

Waddington, L.

Laird, L.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

Lucas, L.

Windlesham, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Addington, L.

Goudie, B.

Ahmed, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Alderdice, L.

Grabiner, L.

Amos, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Andrews, B.

Greaves, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Gregson, L.

Bach, L.

Grenfell, L.

Barker, B.

Hamwee, B.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Harrison, L.

Billingham, B.

Hayman, B.

Blackstone, B.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Blease, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Bradshaw, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Bragg, L.

Hoyle, L.

Brennan, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Brett, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Islwyn, L.

Burlison, L.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Carter, L.[Teller]

Jay of Paddington, B. (Lord Privy Seal)

Chandos, V.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Clement-Jones, L.

Kennedy of The Shaws, B.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Cocks of Hartclifie, L.

Layard, L.

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Crawley, B.

Lipsey, L.

David, B.

Lockwood, B.

Davies of Coity, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Desai, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller]

Dubs, L.

Elder, L.

McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

Evans of Watford, L.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Falkland, V.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

McNally, L.

Fyfe of Fairfield, L.

Maddock, B.

Gale, B.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

Goodhart, L.

Mitchell, L.

894

Molloy, L.

Simon, V.

Morgan, L.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Smith of Leigh, L.

Nicol, B.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Northover, B.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L.

Tomlinson, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Tope, L.

Rea, L.

Tordoff, L.

Redesdale, L.

Turnberg, L.

Renwick of Clifton, L.

Uddin, B.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Varley, L.

Roper, L.

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Russell, E.

Warner, L.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L

Sandberg, L.

Whitaker, B.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Whitty, L.

Scott of Needham Market, B.

Wilkins, B.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Shutt of Greetland, L.

Winston, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
7.48 p.m.
[Amendment No. 202 not moved.]
Lord Marsh Lord Marsh moved Amendment No. 203:
Page 87, line 44, at end insert—
("(3A) Subject to subsection (3B), no material to which this section applies shall be distributed or displayed to the public free of charge during the referendum period by or on behalf of—

(a) any Minister of the Crown, government department or local authority;

(b) any other person or body whose expenses are defrayed wholly or mainly out of public funds or by any local authority; or

(c) the Post Office;

unless such material—

(d) is factual and impartial; and

(e) has been circulated to permitted participants at least seven days before it is published.

(3B) Subsection (3A) does not apply to—

(a) material made available to persons in response to specific requests for information or to persons seeking access to it; or

(b) material published on web-sites.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise—encouraged by the narrowness of the last vote—to pursue Amendment No. 203. Briefly, it is an issue of fundamental principle.
I start by saying that, having heard some of the comments in the previous debate, I do not believe that any circumstance of national consequence could arise in which the parties involved in a referendum would manage or even wish to stop the government of the country getting their message across. I do not believe that would happen and Amendment No. 203 specifically recognises that government have to continue in the course of elections and referendums; and they have a right and duty so to do.
One of the fundamental differences between democracies such as ours and those with a shorter history of stability and trust is the extent to which governments intervene in elections and referendums. This amendment seeks merely to find another formula

895
which the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, although he holds a brief which probably makes minor changes, might find acceptable.
I was a founder member of Business for Sterling and I am president of the council of that admirable organisation. In the light of some of last night's debates, I believe that the amendment goes wider than arguments about the European Union, the euro and so forth. The issue is simple, fundamental, non-partisan and was clearly described in the report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, which I shall not quote again. It is that all governments will be tempted—they always have been—to take advantage of any situation and if they are able to mobilise at taxpayers' expense an argument which suits them politically they will take the opportunity to do so.
I have been accused of many things but never of being a political romantic. Governments have always sought to use their position to influence the results of elections and referendums. Luckily, we in this country can afford to live with it, despite complaining when it happens. But the problem is the blatant potential imbalance which arises regularly with each referendum and is beginning to endanger the credibility of referendums in a democratic society.
An example is the European referendum. The "no" campaign will be restricted to £5 million for the referendum period but the Government have already spent more than £15 million on "information", including a direct mailshot to 800,000 businesses. I give that example because 75 per cent of British business has no trade with Europe. By definition, the 15 per cent which trades with Europe does not require advice on how to trade in foreign currencies, whether they be deutschmarks, French francs, Burmese kyats or euros. It is a totally false argument which is thinly disguised as crucial to the Government's position. The position is indefensible and if it remains unchecked it will worsen.
It is not a party issue. When I became a Minister many years ago I received a wondrous letter from the late Douglas Houghton congratulating me on becoming a Minister. He concluded by stating (those who remember him will hear his voice):
"You will enjoy being a Minister enormously. It will almost certainly be the most interesting thing you ever do. But one thing, dear boy, never forget, it will not last".
I warn noble Lords on the Government Benches that when the two parties change sides, as will happen at some stage, Chancellor Mackay of Ardbrecknish will stand at the Dispatch Box and with all his usual eloquence will argue that any restrictions upon the Government's freedom of action would be a constitutional outrage and undoubtedly a breach of human rights legislation.
The trend will continue and if it continues on the present scale it can only get worse. It is highly undesirable. The amendment gives the government of the day plenty of opportunity to circulate any factual and impartial material, subject to the participants having an opportunity to comment within seven days. All the materials published on websites will also be
896
unrestricted. Like others, we seek to halt a situation in which a government can wage two campaigns at the same time: one through their party office, like all the other parties, and the other at the taxpayers' expense out of Number 10.
It is a highly undesirable situation. I put the amendment to the House and hope that the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, will absorb it in addition to all the others. It is a pity that all the similar amendments were not in the same group. I hope that the noble Lord will accept that such a change would benefit everyone. We seek a position in which no one will view the legislation as giving anyone the authority to prevent a government governing during an election or referendum campaign.
Lord Willoughby de Broke: My Lords, I rise briefly to support the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Marsh. It is important that during a referendum campaign the Government and other public bodies should be prohibited from sending contentious and slanted propaganda through the post, by e-mail and so forth.
There was a recent example of that when the Post Office sent about 170,000 leaflets through the post to small and medium-sized businesses extolling the virtues of the euro in terms which could not be described, even by the warmest admirer of the euro, as impartial. Such incidents make the amendment essential.
Furthermore, it would be unfortunate if under the guise of information the Government brought forward another discussion paper or introduced an annual review of the national changeover plan during a referendum period. Amendment No. 203 covers those matters and I hope that the Government will take on board the points which have been made and act accordingly.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, Clause 122 is the Government's discharge of the recommendation in the Neill report that at a certain point before a referendum is held the government of the day, as a government, should stand back—should stand aloof—and leave the campaigning to the political parties and other campaign organisations.
The Neill committee was particularly sceptical about material which in previous cases was circulated to the electorate very close to the date of the poll. It questioned the distinction between factual and persuasive material. Clause 122 implements the committee's recommendation by providing for a 28-day embargo on the issue to the public of government publications. This arrangement is equivalent to restrictions on the role of the Government in the run-up to a general election.
Amendment No. 203 would additionally require that material circulated by the Government during the referendum period as a whole must be factual and impartial and must have been circulated to permitted participants at least seven days prior to publication. In other words, it is proposed that, in addition to the

897
complete ban which applies in the 28 days prior to the poll, it should also be incumbent upon the Government to prepare neutral material during the remainder of the referendum period.
That would not work. Perhaps I may remind the House precisely why the Neill committee considered a ban on government material to be necessary. The Neill committee said in paragraph 12.44 of its report:
"We believe that it is extraordinarily difficult, if not impossible, for the government of the day to offer purely objective and factual information in the course of a referendum campaign, especially when, as is usually the case, it is itself a party to the campaign";
in other words, it was the very impossibility of regarding even purported factual material as impartial that led the committee to conclude that the kind of ban for which this clause provides was necessary. There is an argument over whether the ban should apply throughout the entire referendum period. The reason for not doing so is that that period is likely to cover the passage through Parliament of a Bill which makes provision for the referendum.
8 p.m.
Lord Bach: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, rises to speak. I take it that the noble Lord intends to put a question to elucidate an answer from the Minister.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for anticipating my purpose. Is it not the case that, in the context of the difficulty of adjudicating between pure information and tendentious information, under Clause 142 the commission has "the general function of monitoring compliance"? Therefore, is not the commission the obvious and natural body to undertake that task?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, one can argue that the commission is the natural body to do it. However, one would be charging the commission with an extraordinarily difficult task. Recently, we had a debate on the question whether a referendum question should be viewed as fair or biased. The amendment in question proposed that that matter should be put to the commission for consideration. I believe it was concluded that it was a very difficult job for any body to carry out, and it ran the risk that the commission would be placed in a highly political position. I believe that that could well be the result in this context.
During the course of a Bill passing through Parliament government would want to argue their case. It is not possible to conceive that factual material produced by government in relation to such a Bill would be universally regarded as impartial. I do not see the case for providing permitted participants with advance sight of any such "factual and impartial" material. Why should campaign organisations see such material!before the electorate? Is it being suggested that, for example, the explanatory notes to a Bill should be circulated to permitted participants before being published?
898
The proposal seems to be predicated on the assumption that such material will not be impartial at all and that permitted participants should be given advance notice so that they can have their riposte prepared in time for publication. In short, the proposal is aimed at the wrong target. The real point is that, as the Neill committee recommended, there should come a point at which the government of the day stand back from the fray altogether, and the clause as it stands provides precisely for that. I believe that the noble Lord's amendment, well intentioned though it is, places far too great a responsibility on those who would be asked to judge whether something was impartial and fair. For those reasons, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, does he agree that the clause as it now stands, bereft of this amendment or something like it, allows the government of the day, who after all are the only ones who will know when a referendum is to be held, to shower the public with highly tendentious and persuasive literature five weeks before a referendum, and in a manner which would be grossly unfair and unbalanced vis-à-vis other parties to the referendum?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the noble Lord asks a loaded question, and I believe that his proposition is an unreasonable one. Government who are in the serious business of governing will act entirely responsibly throughout the introduction of the Bill, and the debates upon it, in Parliament. I cannot see government wanting to try to load the issue because it would be counter-productive, particularly in the United Kingdom, which has a free press.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, is it not a negation of the purpose of this clause, and the amendment to it, to say that government will be responsible? Surely, we are talking here of the possibility of government being irresponsible.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I just cannot agree with the noble Lord.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 204 and 205 not moved.]
Clause 126 [Orders regulating conduct of referendums]:
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 206:
Leave out Clause 126.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 206 would simply remove Clause 126. The clause gives the Secretary of State very wide-ranging order-making powers. During Second Reading in the other place, Mr Mike O'Brien said:
"We intend to table amendments that will … make the legislation a truly generic referendums Bill".—[Official Report, Commons, 10/1/00; col. 113.]

899
Clause 126 was a government amendment tabled in Committee in another place. However, the clause does not turn this Bill into a truly generic referendums Bill; it is a Henry VIII provision. The clause gives the Secretary of State the power, after consulting the electoral commission, but not on that body's recommendation, to make rules for referendums. Further, he will have power to create criminal offences. Can the Minister tell us what kind of criminal offences and penalties the Government intend to create under Clause 126?
In another place the clause was condemned by opposition members as a charter for gerrymandering referendums. The Government promised a generic referendums Bill, but this clause does not provide one; it is a Henry VIII provision. Having called for a general referendums Bill since 1997 when the first measure concerned with referendums appeared, I am deeply disappointed that a clause like this appears in the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: My Lords, I speak in support of my noble friend's amendment. At Report stage we have talked at great length about the strategic purpose of the Bill which is to rebuild confidence in the democratic process. This is one of the issues to which we have turned all our efforts. The Minister has spoken of the importance of the electoral commission being in a position which is above reproach so that it carries the confidence of all sections of the community. Suddenly, one sees Clause 126, which covers referendums that are by any stretch of the imagination contentious. The Government must be aware of the degree of disquiet in different corners of the House tonight about the issue of referendums and the various provisions of the Bill which are complicated and difficult to understand. The Secretary of State is to take unto himself powers that are wide ranging. To do that in a contentious area is likely to undermine not only the purpose of the Bill but confidence in the electoral commission and its role in the future structure of government.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I too support the amendment. I confess that I began to examine Clause 126 only about 15 minutes ago. The very words used by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, immediately spring metaphorically to my lips. This is a Henry VIII clause which creates new and undefined criminal offences, presumably with potentially very severe penalties. I am interested to hear the Government's response.
Lord Bach: My Lords, this clause enables the Secretary of State to make detailed provision for the conduct of referendums by order. I make it quite clear that the Bill will not replace the need for specific legislation to authorise the holding of a referendum on a particular issue. But the consideration of such legislation should focus on the key questions; namely, whether it is right to hold a referendum on the particular issue; and, if so, when it should be held and what the question should be. The simple purpose of Clause 126 is to obviate the need to make detailed
900
provision on the face of each Bill providing, for a referendum to be held as to the arrangements for the conduct of the poll. For example, by far the larger part of the Referendums (Scotland and Wales) Act 1997 was taken up by a schedule setting out necessary modifications to the Representation of the People Act 1983 and to other statutes and regulations for the purposes of those referendums. We cannot see any reason why that kind of matter should not be left to subordinate legislation.
Clause 126 would therefore enable the Secretary of State, after consulting the electoral commission, to make detailed provision for the conduct of a particular referendum by order. In practice, that will mean applying with appropriate modifications the relevant provisions of the Representation of the People Acts and regulations. Therefore, Clause 126(2)(b) specifies that such an order may apply, with or without modification, any provision of any enactment and make different provision in relation to different parts of the United Kingdom. That latter point simply reflects the fact that some aspects of electoral law differ in Northern Ireland and, indeed, Scotland, as compared with the rest of the United Kingdom.
Turning to the creation of offences to which the noble Lord referred, he rightly says that Clause 26(2)(a) specifies that such an order may provide for the creation of offences. There is no sinister purpose behind the provision. Its purpose is simply to apply to referendums those offences that already exist in relation to elections or equivalent offences where the existing offences are inappropriate. The Representation of the People Act creates various offences. Personation is one of them. There are other related offences. Any order under Clause 126 would apply these for the purposes of a referendum.
I should remind the House that there are a number of precedents for this kind of order-making power. For example, the arrangements for the conduct of the elections to the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly rely on similar order-making powers in Section 12 of the Scotland Act 1998 —an Act with which the noble Lord is familiar—and Section 11 of the Government of Wales Act 1998.
A process very like Clause 126 was included in a Northern Ireland (Border Poll) Act 1972. When considering the matter, that is perhaps not an Act that comes immediately to noble Lords' minds. That was an Act passed under a different government, albeit many years ago.
Finally, it is worth recording, because if the opposite were true we should have heard much about it, that the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation made no recommendation about this or—in passing—any other of the delegated powers in the Bill. If that committee had no difficulty with the power to create offences or to apply other enactments, we do not see any reason for the House to take a different view.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am very dissatisfied with that answer because the Minister has

901
really failed to address the point. Yes, we had to have schedules to the Referendums (Scotland and Wales) Act, but they were cut-and-paste jobs because there was not a generic referendums Act on the statute book. Yes, we had to have the same cut-and-paste jobs for the Scottish parliamentary elections. But we do not need to have cut-and-paste jobs for general elections because laid down in statute we have the rules governing them. Ministers do not need to come up with elaborate regulations every time we have a general election. They are all laid down. Occasionally we make changes, but we make these changes sensibly in between times.
The Representation of the People Act is on the statute book. It is ready. One presses a button and off one goes. The point about a proper generic referendum Bill is that it would take the cut-and-paste job we had to do for the Scottish referendum, ensure it was general in its application to any referendum, and incorporate that as schedules to the Bill. Perhaps I should have gone to the trouble of so doing. I helped the Government out in July 1997 when they got into a total shambles over the schedules which allowed the referendum to take place. I helped them to set out the details. I rather hoped that they had learned the lesson. It would lengthen the Bill, but I really would not have complained in this case because the rules for referendums would have been set out clearly in a principal Act, just as the rules for general elections are.
I am sorry that the Minister does not see this as an important point. But if we are going to use referendums, one day the Government will have to do that because it is a cumbersome procedure to do cut-and-paste jobs based on general election procedures and make them fit referendum procedures. That is all I was really after in a generic referendums Act. Clearly I did not explain myself well enough. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.15 p.m.
Schedule 16 [Control of donations to candidates: New Schedule 2A to the Representation of the People Act 1983]:
Lord Bach Lord Bach moved Amendments Nos. 207 to 210:
Page 193, line 18, leave out ("(2)(d)") and insert ("(1)(d)").
Page 193, line 21, leave out ("(2)(e)") and insert ("(1)(e)").
Page 193, line 43, leave out ("bequest") and insert ("a bequest or any other form of testamentary disposition").
Page 195, line 36, leave out sub-paragraph (2) and insert—
("(2) For the purposes of this Schedule any relevant donation received by a candidate or his election agent which is an exempt trust donation shall be regarded as a relevant donation received by the candidate or his election agent from a permissible donor; and section (Interpretation: exempt trust donations) of the 2000 Act (Interpretation: exempt trust donations) shall apply for the purposes of this Schedule as it applies for the purposes of that Act.
(2A) But, for the purposes of this Schedule, any relevant donation received by a candidate or his election agent from a trustee of any property (in his capacity as such) which is not—

(a) an exempt trust donation, or

902

(b) a relevant donation transmitted by the trustee to the candidate or his election agent on behalf of beneficiaries under the trust who are—

(i) persons who at the time of its receipt by the candidate or his election agent are permissible donors falling within section 52(2) of the 2000 Act, or

(ii) the members of an unincorporated association which at that time is such a permissible donor,

shall be regarded as a relevant donation received by the candidate or his election agent from a person who is not such a permissible donor.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendments Nos. 211 and 212:
Page 196, line 3, leave out ("not less") and insert ("more").
Page 196, line 17, leave out ("not less") and insert ("more").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Bach Lord Bach moved Amendments Nos. 213 and 214:
Page 196, line 24, leave out second ("(7)") and insert ("(6)").
Page 198, line 43, leave out ("(2) to (10)").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 129 [Financial limits applying to candidates' election expenses]:
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 215:
Page 93, line 5, leave out ("at") and insert ("whether before, during or after an election on account of, or in respect of, the conduct or management of").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 215, I shall speak to Amendment No. 216. Noble Lords will be pleased to hear that these amendments get us away from referendums. They are probing amendments because something has been drawn to my attention about the way the Bill changes the Representation of the People Act 1983.
These amendments deal with candidates' election expenses. It is an important matter but it has been dwarfed by party funding, donation disclosure, Northern Ireland and all the referendum funding questions.
Prior to the Bill being brought before the House, election expenditure was mainly linked to candidate's election expenditure under the requirements set out in the Representation of the People Act 1983. Clause 129 of the Bill seeks to amend Section 76(1) of the existing Representation of the People Act 1983. It removes from existing legislation the statement that:
"No sum shall be paid and no expense shall be incurred by a candidate at an election or his election agent, whether before, during or after an election, on account of or in respect of the conduct or management of the election, in excess of the maximum amount specified in this section, and a candidate or election agent knowingly acting in contravention of this subsection shall be guilty of an illegal practice".
Nowhere in the proposed legislation is there so clear an indication that any expenses incurred by a candidate prior to the dissolution of Parliament, or in the case of a by-election the occurrence of the vacancy, will count towards their election campaign expenses.
This might be an oversight, or the Minister may wish to argue that the intention remains the same. However, the proposed Clause 132 of the Bill introduces a new Section 118A for the Representation of the People Act 1983 which in its subsection 2(b) envisages that a candidate can be declared, by himself or by others, as a candidate earlier than at the dissolution of Parliament. However, this section does not make clear the position on election expenditure.
We are told by the Government that the aim of the Bill is to produce a level laying field in the area of national political campaign expenditure. We can argue whether that may or may not be achieved, but I contend that it muddies the water around candidates' constituency campaign expenditure and it is a disservice to election law.
Election law contains many grey areas. I fear that if we are not careful an opportunity will be lost to introduce real clarity in respect of candidates' election expenses.
At every election there are questions raised by one or other candidate that an opponent is taking unfair advantage of existing law or, more often, bending it. Nothing undermines the integrity of a poll more than questionable or illegal acts like those we are seeing at the moment in the American presidential election. I believe that the missing elements of Section 76 of the RPA could he reintroduced into Clauses 129 and 131 of the PPER Bill in subsection (5)(a) of the proposed new Section 90A. That seems like a huge amount of letters—almost an alphabet soup. But I am sure that the Minister has been well advised about what my amendment seeks to do.
The key to when a candidate's election commences is that it should start from the first moment that he or she, or anyone on their behalf—I stress "on their behalf"—takes any action to promote their candidature for an election at which they are subsequently nominated. It could not be simpler. The expenses to be covered would be those for the promotion of the candidature and the conduct or management of the campaign.
I have not cooked this point up out of thin air. People who for many years have operated election law at constituency level are concerned about the change the Bill makes to the 1983 Act and they feel that there may be a serious problem of which the Government have perhaps not thought. I beg to move.
Lord Bach: My Lords, I was about to congratulate the noble Lord on having spotted without help from anyone else the difficulty that he sees. However, as he was gracious enough to admit, the point has come to him from another source.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, my honesty was greatly impelled by the fact that I thought that the noble Baroness, Lady Gould, might well be aware of the source it came from.
Lord Bach: My Lords, what my noble friend says to me or does not say to me is no business of the noble Lord.
904
I shall be as brief as I can. The amendments concern the definition of a candidate's election expenses. Clause 131 introduces new Sections 90A to 90D of the 1983 Act which set out a revised definition of election expenses. That revised definition is carried over to Section 76 of the 1983 Act, as amended by Clause 129 of the Bill, which sets limits on candidates' election expenses. The combined effect of Clauses 129 and 131 is that Section 76 of the 1983 Act no longer refers to election expenses incurred,
"on account of, or in respect of, the conduct of management of the election".
Instead, the limits on election expenses will apply to such expenses as defined in Sections 90A to 90D of the 1983 Act; that is, expenses incurred with,
"a view to, or otherwise in connection with, promoting or procuring the candidate's election at the election".
In the Government's view, this new formulation represents a considerable improvement on the existing rather ambiguous provisions of the 1983 Act.
The noble Lord seeks to retain the "conduct or management" formula. He is not satisfied with the old formula on its own as he wants to graft it on to the new definition in new Sections 90A to 90D of the 1983 Act. We think that there may be some confusion if that is done. We have received no representations until now about the demise of the formula. As I think is now generally accepted, to refer to election campaigning as the "management" of an election is somewhat quaint, if not archaic. In the language of today we suspect that most candidates would regard the returning officer as the person who actually manages the election.
My next point deals more closely with the point made by the noble Lord in moving the amendment. Nor is it necessary to retain the words,
"whether before, during or after an election",
since Section 90A(2) has the same effect. That is my answer to the problem raised by the noble Lord. We think that the formula used in the 1983 Act has had its day and is in need of updating. That is why we have changed it.
Before I sit down, perhaps I may say that this is a complicated and detailed point. Although we think that we have the answer to it, I would be happy to go away with the point, talk to the officials and perhaps talk to the noble Lord again to see whether those who advise him are right or whether we are right, because we do not want to get it wrong.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. Such is the complexity of the matter that perhaps it would have been better if I had sent the noble Lord a letter at an earlier stage. I shall certainly ensure that the people who brought this point to my attention are made aware tomorrow of what the Minister has said. If we have to develop the point further, I am sure we can. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 131 [Meaning of 'election expenses']:
[Amendment No. 216 not moved.]
Clause 133 [Corrupt and illegal practices: consequences for persons convicted of such practices]:
Lord Bach Lord Bach moved Amendment No. 217:
Page 98, line 38, at beginning insert ("Subject to subsection (1A) below,").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, perhaps I may speak also to Amendments Nos. 218 and 220. These four amendments relate to the incapacities that result following a person's conviction for a corrupt or illegal practice. Under the Representation of the People Act 1983 a candidate convicted of a corrupt or illegal practice is not only debarred for a period from holding elective office but also disqualified as a voter. Having examined these provisions, as amended by Clause 133 of and Schedule 17 to the Bill, more closely, we feel that this dual sanction is difficult to justify. It is entirely proper that where a person is found guilty of an offence as a candidate one of the consequences should be a period of disqualification from holding elective office. But the sanction of disfranchisement more appropriately fits offences committed by a voter; for example, personation. These amendments make the appropriate adjustment to the 1983 Act to this end. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Bach Lord Bach moved Amendment No. 218:
Page 99, line 7, at end insert—
("(1A) The incapacity imposed by subsection (1)(a)(i) above applies only to a person convicted of a corrupt practice under section 60 above or of an illegal practice under section 61 above.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 17 [Amendments relating to election petitions]:
Lord Bach Lord Bach moved Amendments Nos. 219 and 220:
Page 200, line 31, after ("of") insert ("subsection (4A) and")).
Page 200, line 43, at end insert—
("(4A) The incapacity imposed by subsection (4)(a)(i) above applies only to a candidate or other person reported personally guilty of a corrupt practice under section 60 above or of an illegal practice under section 61 above.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 18 [Election campaigns and proceedings: miscellaneous amendments]:
Lord Bach Lord Bach moved Amendments Nos. 221 to 225:
Page 201, line 35, at end insert—
("() In subsection (2), for "and by a receipt" there shall be substituted "or by a receipt".").
Page 203, line 15, leave out ("and") and insert ("or").
Page 207, line 1, after ("3,") insert ("the form of return and").
Page 207, line 5, at end insert—
(" . In Schedule 4 (election expenses in connection with certain local elections), in paragraph 3, for "and receipts" there shall be substituted "or by receipts".").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 136 [Control of political opinion by companies]:
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton Lord Wedderburn of Charlton moved Amendment No. 226:
Page 101, line 12, at end insert—("(1A) The purpose of Schedule 19 is to limit donations by companies to political parties and expenditure by companies for political purposes by way of disclosure both to shareholders and to employees as partners in the enterprise and to secure necessary and proportionate control over such expenditure in order that it should not unduly distort the democratic process and its exercise by the sovereign electorate.
(1B) Nothing in subsection (1A) creates an offence or any liability, but the terms of the subsection shall be taken into account by the court.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in considering how I should approach this amendment, I wondered whether I should follow a famous precedent on amendments on rights for employees and their representatives. On 3rd August 1906, at what Lord Robert Cecil complained was a late hour,
"on a Friday afternoon at the fag end of the Session",
Sir Charles Dilke, that great Liberal statesman, moved a critical amendment to the Trade Disputes Bill for what were then called the "labouring classes". Although he moved the amendment, Dilke made no speech on it. It was left to the House, led by the Attorney-General, to debate it and he relied on the fact of the great Liberal majority that had been returned in the general election to see him through. It was made rather easier by the fact that Mr Balfour, as Hansard records, led most of the Conservative and Unionist Members out of the Chamber in protest against a breach of an alleged government guarantee that debate would end at 11 p.m. on that Friday—a guarantee that was denied by the Government.
I decided that it would be wrong and discourteous to take that course and not to say something about Amendment No. 226. I should say that I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 252. Amendment No. 226 offers a skeleton. Amendment No. 252 puts sufficient flesh on the skeleton to make it a real debate. When directors decide to make political donations from the funds of the company, it has been true at least since 1967 that they should disclose what they are doing. Indeed, disclosure has gone beyond the protection of shareholders, as any student of company law will know. Today, disclosure would include the purposes for which my party fought the election in regard to industrial relations, which my right honourable friend the Prime Minister described in his foreword to Fairness at Work as:
"Already modern and successful companies draw their success from the existence and development of partnership at work".
In some ways this is not a new idea. Extensive literature has been published both here and on the continent concerning what many writers call "conflictual partnership", in the sense that sometimes the interests of workers, shareholders and managers are common, while on other occasions they conflict. In recognising that conflict, one has to take account of the fact that shareholders in a large public company can change their position much more easily than most of the employees simply by selling their shares and

907
changing their investment. The conflicts of interest that do occur form the basic reason why autonomous trade unions exist in all democratic countries.
Because of the decision reached by your Lordships' Judicial Committee in the Osborne case in 1910, we have long had in place extremely strict legislation concerning the political funds of trade unions. Some have suggested that there should be an equal form of legislation for companies, with an opt-out for shareholders as regards political expenditure. I am glad that the Government have not adopted that proposal here because it is not all that practicable. Instead, the new mechanisms for the control of political expenditure in this Bill include disclosure to the shareholders and, in a new residual mechanism of control, a procedure whereby shareholders may eventually challenge the directors' donations for political purposes in the courts. In particular, they will be able to challenge a donation if it lacks the required resolution of approval in a company meeting, to which I shall return when we reach later amendments.
The amendments seek to put in place a parallel obligation on the company to disclose in good time proposed political expenditure to the employees' representatives, to consider any representations they may make and to respond to them if they so wish. The definition of employees' representatives has been taken from three of the mechanisms already known to our law; namely, representatives of a trade union recognised by the company; representatives of a trade union legally entitled to recognition of the status of bargaining agent under the new schedule to the Employment Relations Act 1999; or representatives elected by the workforce in a manner parallel to the methods permitted by the amended provisions of what are now Sections 188 and 188A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.
These amendments do not give to employee representatives precisely equal status to the shareholders in their competence to apply to the courts for control of political expenditure. However, they leave it open to the Minister, once the system has been running for two years or more, to use powers to introduce regulations—which probably I should have drafted as affirmative orders—which would enshrine similar rights for employee representatives. However, that is a power for the future, if it is needed, as in paragraph 347K of Schedule 19 to the unamended Bill.
There is special provision for cases where the company objects to disclosure of information on the ground that it is confidential—which noble Lords will see builds on the important and most welcome innovation by the Government; namely, in the transposition of the European Works Council Directive in Regulation 24 of the trans-national information instrument, SI 3323 of 1999. In brief, this transfers jurisdiction over disputes about confidentiality to the Central Arbitration Committee, which, since 1975, under its chairman Sir John Wood, has a long history of reaching informal and sensible solutions to industrial disputes. On confidentiality, it would judge as it does in the regulations; namely, not by subjective considerations but by determination,
908
using objective tests relating to whether the release of information would be harmful to the enterprise on objective grounds.
The central obligation of management here would be to transmit to the employee representatives within the two weeks before the relevant meeting of the shareholders the terms of the resolution proposed and any other information that it wished to give. Representatives would then have the right to ascertain the opinions of relevant workers, although there would be no power to associate any particular opinion to individuals. This is not a proposal for co-determination in the German style; it is not even a requirement of the kind one finds in Sweden and other countries for a disclosure provision which forms part of the right to bargain. It is a moderate requirement of disclosure and minimum consultation in a tradition which is peculiarly apt for our own jurisdiction, with a long tradition of consultation stemming from the Whitley Committees proposals in 1917.
I believe that modern management agrees with the concept of partnership at the place of work, albeit that most people might precisely define it as they like. Nevertheless, there is a common core of agreement. Partnership in industrial relations must produce more than the aspirational semantics of co-operation; it must result in concrete measures.
I ask my noble friend to show some favour to this proposal. It is something which is attractive in trade union circles and, indeed, in progressive management circles as well. I hope that my noble friend will be able to give an indication that the Government will consider this as a matter that they might like to introduce themselves. I beg to move.
8.30 p.m.
Lord Davies of Coity: My Lords, I rise to support my noble friend Lord Wedderburn of Charlton in moving Amendment No. 226 and speaking to Amendment No. 252. I do this in the belief that these amendments will complement the Bill and will help to establish a fairer and more balanced situation.
For 30 years I was a trade union officer. Over those years a great deal of my time was spent attempting to establish a greater degree of co-operation within industry, and putting that into place, rather than widespread conflict. No one was more pleased than I when, in the mid-1990s, the trade union movement widely embraced the concept of partnership within industry. However, the question of partnership is a mechanism with a two-way flow. It offers rights to and demands responsibilities from the two sides of industry, traditionally described as capital and labour. Capital was reflected in the investment made by shareholders, while labour was reflected by employees contributing to the prosperity of the company.
It seems to me that, if it is to be worth while, consultation must take place with both sides of industry. That has been demonstrated in the Bill so far as concerns shareholders, but I think it should also reflect that consultation, information and notification to employees should take place. If we want partnership

909
to be established and to work fully, that should be reflected in the legislation that we pass. We must recognise that both capital in the form of shareholders and labour in the form of employees create the prosperity that any company achieves. When it has to take decisions with regard to political donations, it is only right and proper that both sides of industry should be treated fairly; otherwise workers will think that they are not really equal partners with shareholders.
Lord Lea of Crondall: My Lords, I add my support to the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Wedderburn of Charlton. It is perhaps a marker for the future. It is a modest proposal to add to the legitimacy of our system. The system has gained in legitimacy over recent years.
I should like to refer briefly to what happened in the mid-1980s. At that time, the Conservative government introduced a mandatory requirement for all trade unions that wished to have political funds to hold a ballot every so often to ascertain whether they wanted to continue having these funds. The expectation was that there would be some nibbling away at the degree of support and therefore at the number of trade unions that would have political funds. Let me remind the House of what actually happened: 100 per cent of unions with political funds endorsed by large majorities the principle of having political funds. If I remember correctly, some 15 trade unions which had never had political funds decided to have them. This was not specifically to do with affiliation to the Labour Party.
I do not know what the Liberal Democrats think about it, but there is a degree of argument that the Liberal Democrats, as well as the Conservative Party, would like to see more cross-fertilisation of political funding. That is a separate argument. But certainly the net result of the reforms of the mid-1980s was rather different to the intention. That added to the legitimacy of the system.
In that sense, there is less cynicism now than there was then about the political system so far as concerns financing. However, a number of questions remain, as the Neill committee discussed. The trade unions gave evidence to that committee as well as the Labour Party; the matter has been looked at quite thoroughly and the Bill is a step forward.
My noble friend's amendment does not seek to stop people making donations. I shall explain why that is not just a phrase. It is very important that the industrial interest in its broadest sense should be involved in the political arena. On all sides of the House there is now a greater balance of industrial experience than was the case 20, 30 and 40 years ago. That balance is necessary; it reflects the fact that there is nothing wrong with political donations. But when people in industry talk about a company being one big happy family and so on, anything which enables people to have a say in the political donations that are
910
made is a step forward. It adds to the richness of our democracy. It gives me great pleasure to support the amendment.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, in the view of the Government, the amendment seeks to extend the power of employees to participate in decisions of the company beyond those areas where they have a legitimate interest in so participating. I understand, of course, the enthusiasm and the loquacious elegance with which the points have been made, but that is the Government's view.
The purpose of these provisions is to ensure that, in a sensitive area of corporate governance, there are formal arrangements in effect for enabling shareholders to constrain and influence the decisions of the directors. It is the manner in which the directors dispose of the resources of the company which is in issue here. It is the shareholders who will bear the primary burden if the funds of the company are dissipated by directors on political ventures of no benefit to the company. The provisions aim to support the important monitoring role of the shareholders in this regard.
Where the shareholders exercise this control, the company and its employees will benefit. We do not think that by building in an element of what could be described as "worker participation" into these arrangements, this control on the directors' activities will be enhanced. Indeed, it may well be a case of too many cooks spoiling the broth, with another layer of monitors brought into the picture. That would seem to be the effect of the amendment.
We consider that the interests of the company, including those of its employees, are best advanced by the arrangements contained in the Bill as drafted. I urge your Lordships to reject these amendments, which would impose a further and unnecessary layer of control on the making of decisions in regard to political donations by companies.
The noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, made the point that some of these measures would be welcomed by what he described as "progressive management". That may well be the case. If so, it is entirely a matter for companies to determine. If they wish themselves to extend the principle of participation in the making of these decisions, all well and good. We do not think that we should legislate for it; that is a matter for the companies.
`slightly regret the reaction of my noble friend, especially his phraseology. This is not a plan for "worker participation" in any sense that literature knows of the phrase. If I did not know him so well and value his friendship so much, I would say that his answer to the propositions reeked a little of the 1980s rather than 1997.
My noble friend rightly said that this is an issue of corporate governance. His brother or sister department, the Department of Trade of Industry, is in the middle of a huge debate and review of the

911
company law duties of directors. At the middle of the enormous document it produced recently is the question of how far directors' duties in law should reflect duties to persons other than shareholders—to employees and to others, and, indeed, to creditors in certain situations. I regret to say that the DTI inquiry is a bit ahead of my noble friend. However, having heard what he said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.45 p.m.
Schedule 19 [Control of political donations by companies: new Part XA of Companies Act 1985]:
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton Lord Wedderburn of Charlton had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 227:
Page 208, line 23, leave out ("EU").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have taken advice and I understand that I am allowed two sentences in relation to the course that my noble friend Lord Evans of Parkside and I wish to take in regard to Amendment No. 227 and its family, if I may so refer to the groupings—other than Amendment No. 259, which again, mea culpa, should have been grouped with Amendment No. 253.
Having thought long about the matter, we believe that, because of decisions already taken in the House in regard to the Bill and because of the new government Amendments Nos. 236 and 237, it would be quite wrong to move this family of amendments—minus Amendment No. 259. We would be asking the House to contradict a number of previous tendencies and to pre-judge the debate, in certain respects, on Amendment No. 236. I seek the leave of the House not to move this family of amendments, other than Amendment No. 259.
[Amendment No. 227 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 228 not moved.]
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 229:
Page 208, line 25, leave out ("Chapter") and insert ("Part, but subsections (4) and (6A) have effect subject to section 347AA").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the main purpose of this group of amendments is to amend the definition of an "EU political organisation" in relation to political donations by companies, in respect of both shareholder authorisation and disclosure. I shall try not to detain the House for too long, but there are some points of explanation which are important for the official record. I shall have to take a little time in moving through the group of amendments.
The drafting of the definition has raised difficult issues. The Government certainly accept that the definition must provide reasonable clarity, but, equally, we believe that it is important that there is no compromise on the issues of transparency and accountability, which lie at the heart of the Neill committee's work. We do not, for example, believe that it would be appropriate for the definition to be
912
drafted in such a way that companies could make a donation without prior shareholder authorisation in circumstances where they would not want the definition to be disclosed. If the directors of a company are in reasonable doubt as to whether an organisation is "political", they should, we believe, seek shareholder authorisation for and disclose donations to that organisation.
The government amendments would make the main test in relation to the definition the intent of the organisation to affect public support for a political party or to influence voters in a referendum. This test, we believe, strikes the right balance between safeguarding the position of independent organisations which seek only to promote public debate while ensuring that the requirement cannot easily be circumvented by front organisations.
The amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Blackwell, would amend the definition so that it applied to an organisation which carried on, or proposed to carry on, activities which are capable of being reasonably regarded as primarily intended to affect public support for a political party. There are two main reasons why the Government cannot support the noble Lord's amendment. In the first place, it would increase uncertainty about the interpretation of the definition. The second reason is a simple one. I believe that the test proposed by the Government is the right one. The test, based on intent to affect public support for a political party or to influence voters in a referendum, seems to us to be fair, proportionate and understandable.
The Government's amendment would also, in the interests of clarity, specifically exempt donations to all-party parliamentary groups and subscriptions to trade associations. We accept the arguments that have been put to us that all-party parliamentary groups are, by their nature, non-partisan, and that it would be harmful to the competitiveness of UK businesses to create uncertainty about the position under the Bill of subscriptions to trade associations.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, and to the noble Lord, Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate, for tabling an amendment which appears to signify their consent to the Government's proposal. I apologise to them if I have misconstrued their purpose.
Amendment No. 234 seeks to amend the definition of "EU political expenditure" so that it covers any expenditure incurred by companies in respect of activities which could reasonably be regarded as intended to affect public support for a political party or organisation or to influence voters in a referendum. The amendment would bring the definition of political expenditure into line with the amended definition of a political organisation; in particular, it would ensure that companies would be required to seek shareholder authorisation for political expenditure in relation to a national or regional referendum.
The Government are conscious, however, that some companies carry on business activities which may, by their very nature, involve the publication or

913
dissemination of material which seeks to influence the views of members of the public: journalism is an obvious example. It is, therefore, our intention to table an amendment for debate at Third Reading providing that these controls will not apply to these forms of business activities.
The other main purpose of this group of amendments is to introduce a £5,000 de minimis threshold in relation to shareholder authorisation. The Government accept that, on practical grounds, there is a strong case for an annual de minimis threshold of £5,000 in relation to authorisation. It is possible, for example, that a company may wish to make a very small sponsorship payment in the course of a financial year which it had not anticipated at the time of its annual general meeting. This proposal would provide some flexibility in this regard. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendments Nos. 230 and 231:
Page 208, line 29, after (" 48") insert (", 49").
Page 208, line 32, leave out (", (6) and") and insert ("to").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 232 and 233 not moved.]
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 234:
Page 208, line 45, at end insert (", or in respect of any activities on the part of the company such as are mentioned in subsection (6A)(b) or (c)").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 235 not moved.]
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 236:
Page 209, leave out lines 1 and 2 and insert—
("(b) any other organisation to which subsection (6A) applies.
(6A) This subsection applies to an organisation if—

(a) it is a political party which carries on, or proposes to carry on, activities for the purpose of or in connection with the participation of the party in any election or elections to public office held in a member State other than the United Kingdom;

(b) it carries on, or proposes to carry on, activities which are capable of being reasonably regarded as intended to affect public support for—

(i) any registered party,

(ii) any other political party within paragraph (a), or

(iii) independent candidates at any election or elections of the kind mentioned in that paragraph; or

(c) it carries on, or proposes to carry on, activities which are capable of being reasonably regarded as intended to influence voters in relation to any national or regional referendum held under the law of any member State.

(6B) "Organisation" includes any body corporate and any combination of persons or other unincorporated association.
(6C) "Registered party" means a party registered under Part II of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Blackwell Lord Blackwell moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 236, Amendment No. 236A:
Line 9, after ("as") insert ("primarily").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I welcome Amendment No. 236 as a step forward from where we were at the previous stage of the Bill. Once again, I declare an interest as the chairman of the Centre for Policy Studies, which is an independent think-tank.
The difficulty that I have with the wording of Amendment No. 236 as it stands is that it leaves a grey area in regard to what is or is not a political organisation. I refer in particular to paragraph (6A)(b), which refers to a political organisation as one which,
"carries on, or proposes to carry on, activities which are capable of being … regarded as intended to affect public support for … any registered party".
Any publication of a policy document might be regarded as having, as one of its consequences, an effect on public support for a registered political party. Let us suppose that an organisation publishes a critique on an aspect of public policy, part of which is critical of current government policy in that area. That might be regarded as "intended to affect public support" for that policy and, therefore, for the party advancing it. However, it seems to me that publishing a reasoned view on a policy area is not intended to be captured under the Government's amendment as a party-political activity or that donors to that group should be regarded as giving money to a party-political group.
My amendment therefore seeks to insert the word "primarily" into sub-paragraph (b) of the amendment. That would make it clear that, in publishing a policy critique setting out views that were different from those of the government or alternative groups, so long as the prime intent was to advance argument about the policy, it would not be captured by this provision; whereas if the intent and the wording were reasonably regarded as "primarily" intended to affect political support for the party, that would place it in a different category. My amendment is simply intended to move the line slightly out of the grey area and make it clearer that the Government are after organisations that are primarily about canvassing support for political parties or a political point of view.
I believe the Minister said that he was not very keen on my amendment. However, in the light of my remarks perhaps he will take a different view and will reconsider the matter before the next stage of the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord McNally: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Newby has added his name to this amendment. He is the chairman of the Centre for Reform, another think-tank. I do not want to add much to what the noble Lord, Lord Blackwell, has said. He set out very clearly the case that is made by the think-tanks. Frankly, like the noble Lord, I was slightly surprised that the

915
Minister "got in quick" with his rejection of a "one-word amendment" which would give a little more elbow-room. Quite honestly, I think that the Minister is straining at gnats not to accept this amendment. I ask him to reconsider what the noble Lord, Lord Blackwell, said and ponder on the matter. This is a concession that the Government could very easily make.
My noble friend Lord Newby, who, unfortunately, cannot be here this evening, asked me to say how much the approach that the Government have taken on the matter is appreciated. In terms of general welcomes, perhaps I may also say that I was lobbied by the North West Pharmaceutical Group to support the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, just in case the government amendment failed. Obviously, the group does not have as much confidence in the Government Whips as I have. The lobbying brief says that if the government amendment succeeded, those concerned would be content.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, the amendment raises an important issue. It goes to what is intended by those who are carrying on such activities. First, there is no more difficult problem than to decide what is intended by people, although it can be done. But various areas of the law show that determination of the "primary" intention—or, perhaps, in some cases, the "dominant" intention—causes an enormous amount of work for lawyers. Therefore, I would be against the amendment on that ground.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I listened most carefully to the introductory remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Blackwell, and, indeed, to the subsequent comments. I should declare an interest at this point because I serve on the executive of the Fabian Society. I should have thought that the word "primarily" would help organisations that publish documents or pamphlets dealing with political issues, or put forward options for the sake of consideration by political parties, and by others. I have in mind organisations like the Fabian Society that organise workshops and seminars, all of which are intended to highlight political issues and lead to more informed debate.
Those activities might indirectly be construed as affecting political support for a registered party, but, in practice, we know that that is not what they are really about; they are about informed, sensible political discussion. As I say, I believe that the addition of the word "primarily" would help. It would clarify matters and make the understanding of them much easier. Therefore, I hope that my noble friend the Minister will think again. As has been said, it is a very small amendment but one which would help organisations like the Fabian Society, and others.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, my answer to the noble Lord, Lord McNally, is that one word can make a lot of difference. Unfortunately, that is the case with the amendment now before us. I am extraordinarily sympathetic in this respect. Before I
916
continue, perhaps I should declare that I am a member of the Fabian Society. In fact, I ought to have declared that interest before. It was just an oversight on my part. I must make that point clear.
The problem here is, first, that the amendment tends to muddy the waters. I believe that it would make the definition less clear. Secondly, as I said earlier, a test based on intent to affect the way in which people vote appears from the Government's point of view to be only fair and proportionate. Those are the two reasons why we cannot be as helpful as the noble Lord, Lord Blackwell, would wish. I shall, of course, study what the noble Lord said with care. I shall also take careful cognisance of the Hansard report. But no more than that can I promise. We have probably been as helpful as we possibly can.
I well respect the work that all these valuable and valid organisations undertake, as do the Government. I am sorry that I cannot be more helpful. As I said, I shall read the Hansard report and study it most carefully to ascertain what further assistance we can render. However, as I said, I can promise nothing more.
Lord Blackwell: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for his response. This is not an issue that I wish to press at this stage. However, I welcome the noble Lord's offer to reconsider the matter. Perhaps between now and the final stage of the Bill we can discuss the matter further. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment No. 236A, as an amendment to Amendment No. 236, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Amendment No. 236 agreed to.
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 237:
Page 209, line 9, at end insert—
("Exemptions.
347AA.—(1) Section 347A(4) does not extend to a subscription paid to an EU trade association for membership of the association, and accordingly such a payment is not a donation to the association for the purposes of this Part.
(2) In subsection (1)—
"EU trade association" means any organisation formed for the purpose of furthering the trade interests—

(a) of its members, or

(b) of persons represented by its members,

which carries on its activities wholly or mainly in one or more of the member States;
"subscription", in relation to a trade association, does not include any payment to the association to the extent that it is made for the purpose of financing any particular activity of the association.
(3) Section 347A(6A) does not apply to any all-party parliamentary group composed of members of one or both of the Houses of Parliament (or of such members and other persons), and accordingly any such group is not an EU political organisation for the purposes of this Part.
(4) For the purposes of this Part—

(a) a company does not need to be authorised as mentioned in section 347B(1) or section 347C(2) or (3), and

917

(b) a subsidiary undertaking does not need to be authorised as mentioned in section 347D(2),.

in connection with any donation or donations to any EU political organisation or organisations made in a particular qualifying period, except to the extent (if any) that the amount or aggregate amount of any such donation or donations made in that period exceeds £5,000.
(5) The restrictions imposed by sections 347B(1), 347C(2) and (3) and 347D(2) accordingly have effect subject to subsection (4); and, where a resolution is passed for the purposes of any of those provisions, any amount of donations in relation to which, by virtue of subsection (4), no authorisation is needed shall accordingly not count towards the sum specified in the resolution.
(6) In subsection (4) "qualifying period" means—

(a) the period of 12 months beginning with the relevant date for the company or (in the case of a subsidiary undertaking) the parent company; and

(b) each succeeding period of twelve months.

(7) For the purposes of subsection (6) the relevant date for a company is—

(a) if an annual general meeting of the company is held within the period of 12 months beginning with the date of the coming into force of this section, the date of that meeting; and

(b) otherwise, the date immediately following the end of that period.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move formally.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton Lord Wedderburn of Charlton moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 237, Amendment No. 237A:
Line 26, leave out ("does not need to") and insert ("must").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 237B to 237D. I apprehend that I have done my case no good, despite the hour of the night, by going too fast. Therefore, I should like the House to pause and consider what is involved in this the latest of the Government's amendments. If I am not mistaken, it was tabled last Wednesday. It would reverse a central part of what has been the jewel in the crown of this Bill. Indeed, I referred to it when I argued that employees should have, not participation—I insist, again—but merely a voice in respect of these matters regarding political donations.
Where are we at present? We have reached the point where directors have decided that they want to propose to use part of the company's funds, which have probably been raised for commercial and similar purposes, for political donations. They will have been wise enough to have that capability put in the memorandum of association, and everywhere else that is necessary; for example, in the articles, and so on. But this is a step that the Government's Bill has surrounded with some 10 or 15 pages of print in Schedule 19.
Those pages in Schedule 19 contain checks and balances, to which I referred previously. They are, first, that the procedure must be entered into and completed and put to the shareholders at a general meeting for approval. Specific sections are added to ensure that that is done properly where there is a holding company and a subsidiary company. Moreover, as one goes through the pages, a procedure
918
is invented whereby the shareholders can go to court and obtain a court order against the directors to replace the money if they have not gone through the proper process. Even I thought that that was a bit harsh. But then I came across the various defences that the schedule provides for such directors, which are probably quite reasonable.
However, as I said, this amendment was tabled only last week, after the Government had had nearly two years to consider the matter. It was put down without explanation; indeed, the only explanation that we shall have about it will be what my noble friend said tonight in his introduction. If I may say so, he did not speak at length to Amendment No. 236. This central mechanism, which is new to our law and which was so much the Government's prize in the schedule, is to be removed. Previous amendments allow for a donation to a party in this country or in the European Union. I spoke to that matter once before in these proceedings and pointed out that it would allow donations to M le Pen's party and all the other parties I rather dislike, such as Mr Haider's party in Austria. But I object just as much if a company is able to give money to the French socialist party without—as the schedule would have demanded—putting that to the shareholders at a general meeting. I appreciate, of course, that as regards a large public company, the shareholders are, in effect, the financial institutions. I do not mind that. The whole point is that those procedures would give publicity to the matter. I apprehend that if we had discussed companies making payments to defend apartheid some five or 10 years ago, there would have been solid approval of the need to put that to a shareholders' meeting.
This measure constitutes a major change in government policy. The sum of £4,999 every year is not a small amount of money. I recall that my noble friend Lady Gould talked of the difficulty that local parties have in raising small sums. We all know that that is true.
I do not understand how my noble friend can ask us to approve Amendment No. 237, which introduces a whole new section 347AA. I suggest leaving out the provision about not needing to get approval and introducing the word "must" in relation to getting approval. I am grateful to officials in the Public Bill Office for their help but I suspect that the amendment I am discussing is a wrecking amendment and that I should vote against it. However, it is on the Marshalled List and therefore I am home and dry.
There should be shareholders' approval for the measure we are discussing. The Government have always believed that there should be shareholders' approval. That leads me to ask how my noble friend can put this measure to us now. On what grounds does he do that? Who thought of the idea? Who put it to the Government that one should remove this major mechanism for greater publicity, which is the whole point of shareholders' meetings? Who thought it up? Was it thought up by the Government? Amendment No. 237D would reduce the amount that could be used

919
in this way by the directors at their whim, without it being subject to any control whatever, down to £50 as opposed to £5,000.
I stop there although there is much more to say about this venture of the Government's. Why was it not tabled in another place? What was wrong with the idea then? The matter was carefully considered in another place. This is not a case of this House not having the opportunity to consider the most careful debates that took place in Standing Committee G. There was not a murmur of this proposal. Indeed, in those debates the Government were proud—as well they should have been—to introduce the new mechanism. I do not understand—and many members of our party will not understand—why the Government have suddenly decided to remove this mechanism (which has gained some publicity and support for the party) and impose a cut-off point of £5,000. I wonder why they chose the sum of £5,000. Are shareholders not interested in anything less or more? Of course, that is absurd. I am amazed at this proposal, which was tabled only last week. I ask my noble friend the direct question: who thought it up and what are the grounds for it? I beg to move.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I refer to one of the important principles and approaches that we have attempted to embrace during the course of the development of the Bill. I think that one has to accept that the Bill has developed. That charge has been levelled rather more sharply against the Government on occasion, and from time to time by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay. One of the important ways we should approach the Bill is to try to be as consensual as we can because we need a system of regulation that we can in the main all sign up to.
The £5,000 de minimis limit is a response to representations that we have received from both sides of the House. The limit is an aggregate figure covering all political donations made in any year. The de minimis limit reflects the fact that companies may make innocent donations, for example, to think tanks. We do not want these provisions inadvertently to affect adversely such activities. The noble Lord, Lord Mackay, tabled a similar amendment in Committee.
We believe that our amendment provides a small measure of flexibility so that companies do not have to call extraordinary general meetings for what one might describe as fairly modest donations. My suspicion is that most donations will probably be larger than £5,000 and attract some attendant publicity. There is an organisation which regularly monitors party political or similar donations. The Labour Research Department produces an excellent publication which does exactly that. I do not think that political donations will be without publicity, interest or disclosure.
We have approached the issue on a consensual basis. I am sorry that the noble Lord was not aware of earlier similar amendments. Yes, we have had representations from a range of organisations and political parties. That is the cause underlying the amendment. We do not seek to undermine the general principle behind
920
disclosure; far from it. We have been frank about that. It is a matter of practicality. If we were to go down to the level of the £50 suggested by the noble Lord in one of his amendments it would be the sledgehammer to crack a nut syndrome.
I understand the logic of the noble Lord's argument. However, I respectfully ask him to withdraw the amendment.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, the £5,000 figure is the same as the figure which has to be disclosed for donations to a national political party. I assume that that is no coincidence. But there is also a requirement that donations of more than £1,000 in relation to a single constituency organisation should be disclosed. Therefore would not it he appropriate to reduce the £5,000 level to £1,000 to make sure that anything which has to be disclosed under this Bill also has to be approved by the shareholders?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I do not entirely follow the noble Lord's logic though I can see where he is coming from. Shareholders are entitled to be told about all except the very smallest of donations; and there is no reason to amend the current disclosure threshold of £200. If a company donates £1,000 to a constituency association it would still be able to be disclosed under Part IV of the Bill. So there is already provision in place for that eventuality.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, I, and many others, will read very carefully my noble friend's remarks in Hansard. The noble Lord is right to say that a report must appear in the director's report of all political donations over £200. The argument of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, that there are grounds for choosing £1,000 seems to have some strength.
The figure of £5,000 apparently comes from some anonymous representations from political parties As I was unable to attend the House, I read the Official Report in bed. I do not remember this precise point being made in Committee. If the Minister writes to me with a reference—he has kindly done so previously—I shall be interested to read it.
Of course I shall beg leave to withdraw the amendment. However, if what I think was said appears in Hansard there will be a considerable amount of dislike within his own party. It is true that if one is a subscriber one can gain these figures from the research undertaken by the Labour Party research department. I suspect that few people here read such publications. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, on being an avid reader of the Labour Research Department's publications. My noble friend must understand that the provision removes any shareholder control in relation to the figure of f5.000 a year, every year. The figure will appear in the report of the directors, but no more. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

921
[Amendments Nos. 237B to 237D, as amendments to Amendment No. 237, not moved.]
On Question, Amendment No. 237 agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 237E to 241 not moved.]
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton Lord Wedderburn of Charlton moved Amendment No. 242:
Page 209, line 25, leave out from ("means") to end of line 29 and insert ("a special resolution").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 243, 244, 247 and 250. The amendments can be dealt with quickly. They relate to two points of company law.
The first is the procedure when a matter comes before a shareholders' meeting. As the Bill stands, approval can be given by an ordinary resolution, a special resolution, any other means allowed by the articles of association or—this is what I object to—a mechanism determined by the directors. The issue is whether the shareholders will approve of the donations proposed by the directors. It is therefore improper for the directors to be in charge of the way in which the shareholders' meeting must give that approval. I would have thought that that was elementary.
Since the turn of the century, important decisions relating to a company, such as a change of the articles, have had to be made by a special resolution that must be passed by a three-quarters majority with 21 days' notice. That is set down in the Companies Act 1985. Under Amendment No. 242, that would be the only way of approving of a donation.
The other amendments cover a technical point. I congratulate the Government that the Bill prevents the method of ratification by shareholders from curing a breach of their duties if the directors are in breach. There is also a line of authority, particularly in the court's decision in Re Duomatic, whereby many decisions have accepted informal unanimous acquiescence of shareholders as equivalent, although not identical, to ratification. That is why Amendment No. 244 would include:
"any formal or informal unanimous acquiescence or agreement".
I beg to move.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the Government do not accept the amendments. In the first place, they would require companies wishing to make political donations to table a special resolution. We do not believe that that would be appropriate, given that a special resolution is required under the Companies Act 1985 only when fundamental changes, such as the alteration of the articles of association, are proposed. The Bill allows companies to require a higher voting majority for such resolutions by modifying their articles or by directors' determination.
Another aim of the amendments is to ensure that retrospective unanimous consent by shareholders to a donation made without their approval, however expressed, would not relieve the directors of the consequences of contravention. We believe that the
922
amendment is unnecessary, as the wording that the noble Lord seeks to amend is sufficiently wide to include all forms of approval, formal or informal, given by shareholders to prior director action. Indeed, specifying a particular means of approval may cast doubt on the width of the words,
"no ratification or other approval made or given by the company or its members".
Having heard that explanation and the assurances on the construction of the relevant provision, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, I am sorry about my noble friend's first point, but I shall leave it. As to the second point—that approval or ratification must include unanimous acquiescence—I do not know what to do. I can only refer him to the judgment in Multinational Gas v. Multinational Gas Services in 1983 in the first volume of Chancery 258 in the Court of Appeal. He will see that, unless one deliberately inserts the words "informal acquiescence" as well as "formal ratification or approval", one is very much at risk of a court accepting the argument that informal acquiescence is sufficient. I can say no more than that and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 243 to 250 not moved.]
Lord Bach Lord Bach moved Amendment No. 251:
Page 213, line 19, leave out ("otherwise than as mentioned in section 347F(1)") and insert ("without having been authorised as mentioned in section 347D(2)").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 252 not moved.]
Clause 137 [Disclosure of political donations and expenditure in directors' report]:
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton Lord Wedderburn of Charlton moved Amendment No. 253:
Page 101, line 27, leave out ("registered party") and insert ("political party, wherever situated.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, there will probably be some mysterious reason why this amendment is not acceptable, but I shall set out what it seeks to achieve. As the law stands at present, there is one system of entering into the directors' report donations made by the company for political or charitable purposes. I expected that the Government would leave, but amend and bring up to date, that method, which is set out in Schedule 7 to the Companies Act 1985. However, the Government have not done so. Indeed, it was pointed out in a research paper for another place that Clause 129 proposes,
"two new disclosure regimes for political donations and expenditure within the UK/EU area and for political contributions in the rest of the world".
I appreciate that some noble Lords may become confused and believe that I am repeating a point made in relation to permissible donors. I am not. This has nothing whatever to do with the previous debates about the European Union. The question raised by my amendment is: what ground is there for changing the

923
system of reporting political donations into a dual system, which is brought about by Clause 137? They are similar systems. It is simply that one is drafted for the UK and EU and is slightly more regulatory but scarcely more so than the one which is drafted for new paragraph (4) of the Companies Act schedule for political contributions in the rest of the world.
Would it not be better to have less red tape and to leave one system for disclosure in the directors' report? We have chosen to amend the first system that the Government propose so that everything is covered. It seems to us rather better drafted than the second one because the second one refers to "contributions" rather than "payments" and has problems in that respect. I simply ask the Minister whether we could have rather less of the Bill in this case and have one system for reporting in directors' reports that covers every donation, whomever they are to and in whatever manner the directors propose to make them.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the Government have adopted the same pragmatic response to disclosure as they have to shareholder authorisation. In the light of the responses to their consultation, the Government have decided to apply the full disclosure regime only in respect of donations to EU political organisations or EU political expenditure. However, the Bill would require companies which made political donations outside the European Union to disclose a single aggregate figure in respect of monetary donations to overseas political parties. We feel that that would best provide for the situation which I believe is envisaged by my noble friend and provide a warning flag to investors if companies were making substantial overseas donations.
The other points which my noble friend made were covered in some of our earlier debates. Therefore, I do not need to respond to those. But if there is something that I have missed, I shall certainly pick that up at a later stage, having noted carefully what my noble friend said.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for saying that he will look again at some of the matters concerned. It has nothing whatever to do with any of the previous debates. It is a question of what the Bill says about what directors should put into their reports about donations.
The Government have invented an extremely regulatory system for donations relating to the United Kingdom or Europe and a rather less clear and less regulatory system for donations made anywhere else. Donations to Sweden will go in one director's report; for donations to Norway, something rather different is in place. I cannot understand why that is so.
My noble friend seemed to say that the Government have had consultations but we are not told with whom and in regard to what propositions. He concluded by saying, "We think this is the best way of doing things". I asked why and my noble friend, with great respect to
924
him—and I value his friendship very greatly—did not give me any reason at all for the division of paragraphs 3 and 4 of Schedule 7 into two different methods. I hope that he will think again. It would be easier for directors to operate if they knew which system they had to follow if, for example, they are giving one donation in respect of Australia and another in respect of Austria or France. But, obviously, I must beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 254 to 256 not moved.]
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Lyell): My Lords, I must advise your Lordships that, if Amendment No. 257 is agreed to, I would not be able to call Amendment No. 258.
Lord Bach Lord Bach moved Amendment No. 257:
Page 102, leave out lines 18 and 19 and insert ("Part XA of this Act has the same meaning as in that Part").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 258 and 259 not moved.]
Lord Bach Lord Bach moved Amendment No. 260:
Page 102, line 49, leave out ("European Union") and insert ("member States").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 261 not moved.]
Clause 138 [Reduction of qualifying period for overseas electors]:
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 262:
Page 103, line 41, leave out ("10") and insert ("15").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, as Members of your Lordships' House will recall, when we were discussing this part of the Bill at an earlier stage a wide range of views were expressed. It was difficult to see exactly what sort of consensus we would reach. Obviously, in government we have tried to proceed on the basis of reasonable consensus. We face a difficulty in that we must match some of the aspirations of another place, through the Home Affairs Select Committee and its report and findings on these matters, and a desire to reduce the number of years for which people may continue to claim a vote when they are living overseas.
On the other hand, we must respect the fact t hat many people who live overseas working for government, industry, business and commerce generally wish to play a full and active part in political life here and certainly wish to retain the right to vote.
So, having initially reduced the period to 10 years in our provisions, we took the view that we might be able to satisfy some of the understandable concerns which were being expressed, not least by the new friend of Socialist International, the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, who was extremely persuasive on this matter. We thought that we should move somewhat in his direction and the direction of other Members of your Lordships' House by offering 15 years as a form of compromise. That is our amendment. I hope that the House will feel able to

925
support it. It will not satisfy everybody in every respect. I realise that it represents a broad brush approach. However, we think that it is probably the most equitable approach that we can adopt. We hope that it finds favour this evening. I beg to move.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, my Amendment No. 263 is grouped with this amendment. I spoke to it in Committee. It seemed that there was a strong case for treating those in the service of international organisations of which the UK is a member—not only the institutions of the European Union but also organisations such as United Nations, the World Trade Organisation, the World Bank and the IMF—as equivalent to being in the public service of the Crown. I have again tabled the amendment on Report because, as a result of the debate in Committee, it seemed that there was a possibility of the Government accepting a package deal which would include the use-it-or-lose-it amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, and our own amendment on public service in EU institutions and other international bodies.
However, it appears that this amendment has not found favour with the Government. It is not an amendment that we could force against the wishes of a reluctant Government. Third Reading already looks like being very long. Therefore, with regret, if the Government are not willing to be more helpful than they have so far been, I am afraid that we shall have to say goodbye to this amendment.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbots: My Lords, I shall be brief. As midnight approached last night, somewhat to my shame I described the Minister's reaction to an amendment that I had moved as "ungenerous". He may now feel that what I am about to say is ungenerous to him, and I accept that.
Naturally, I welcome the move that he has made. It is a step in the right direction. He has described his wish to find something that is clean and neat. I believe that this is clean and neat. However, it is still artificial. It is artificial against a background of increasing labour mobility. People will spend more and more of their time working outside this country, particularly as the single market in the European Union develops. Companies which hitherto would have seen their operations as entirely confined to the United Kingdom will increasingly have at least a European, and sometimes a world, dimension to them. Members of their staff may work overseas for very long periods. Some of them, of course, will enjoy working overseas. The relative freedom of working in smaller subsidiaries is attractive. In addition, they may wish to take into account the climate, though I am not clear as to why anyone should prefer the sunshine of southern Spain to a British winter! Both categories are made up of people who see themselves as British and intend eventually to return to the UK.
In the meantime, many of them will be paying tax and, therefore, contributing to our economy and to the welfare of this country. I therefore believe that they are entitled to representation here. Confusion has existed
926
between residence and domicile. Residence can easily be changed, domicile cannot. Domicile requires a conscious effort on the part of people to demonstrate that they intend to live out their lives abroad. Without this, the Inland Revenue, in its inimitable fashion, can obtain estate duty on assets held in the United Kingdom. The purpose of this is to show that there is no neat and clean solution.
I accept the Minister's amendment. I am grateful to him for the move that he has made. However, I feel that people who pay UK tax and work overseas should have representation and be able to vote in our elections.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, I know of somebody who is in exactly the same position as that described by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. I support the amendment.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, perhaps I may say, briefly, that I am rather cynically bagging the noble Lord's compromise. I have listened to the debate. I shall reflect overnight on whether a more wide-ranging amendment should be considered on Monday. However, I am grateful to the Minister for looking for a compromise, as I have been trying to do for most of today.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, as a great compromiser is a good notion. Briefly, perhaps I may refer to a problem with the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. We could include public servants working abroad but, if we do that, what about people who work for BP, AMOCO, or some other corporation, multinational or other part of public service? Where do we start and where do we stop? The list could go on. We think that our amendment is broad-brushed, clean, neat and simple. It almost goes back to what was there before. We feel that that is the best approach.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, for his kind comments: I think they were kind. We think that this is probably as good as we shall get. One must have a sense of proportion about this matter. The noble Lord is right; the labour market will be more flexible and mobile. At the last count, some 14,000 people abroad exercised their right to register and vote in UK elections. We shall try to help all those people with this approach. I am glad that it seems to be finding broader favour in your Lordships' House.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 263 not moved.]
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 264:
After Clause 138, insert the following new clause—
("Parish polls

Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill

  PARISH POLLS: THRESHOLD
  . In sub-paragraph (4) of Schedule 12 to the Local Government Act 1972 for the words "ten, or one third of the local government electors present at the meeting" there is substituted "fifty local government electors present at the meeting or 2 per cent. of the electorate".").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise to move Amendment No. 264. Hitherto in discussing referendums in the Bill, we have talked about large scale referendums. I want briefly to concentrate on referendums which are on a small scale.
  Amendment No. 264 deals with the threshold for parish polls. I have a very good friend in the Commons, Bill Rammell, who is the MP for Harlow. He told me of a situation in his constituency drawn to his attention by Mr Ed Borton, the parish council chairman of the village of Nazeing. I am told that a local resident, acting independently of the parish council, summoned a formal parish meeting under the Local Government Act 1972.
  His purpose was not to discuss key issues of concern, such as local vandalism, changes in rural bus services or the contentious question of whether or not Epping Forest council uses its powers of planning enforcement fairly. He called the meeting to ask for a ballot on the question,
  "Do you want to keep the pound sterling as the currency of the United Kingdom?"
  We all have a view on that question. After the next election, this Government may well take steps to provide everybody in the country with the opportunity to answer it. However, the case which I make, as does Mr Borton and the National Association of Local Councils, is that this is an abuse of the use of the Local Government Act and the power of parish councils. To ask that question would have cost the ratepayers of that area £1,587.
  The amendment is not about Europe. It does not stray into any other big field. It argues about the sense or nonsense of the trigger which allows parish polls to be carried out. As my amendment shows, if a meeting is called at which half a dozen of the local government electors are present, a third—that is two—can trigger a parish poll. That would involve wasteful expenditure.
  In the parish of Frinton and Walton in Essex, which is well known to me and others, a resident threatened to call a parish poll at a cost to the parish of £3,500 unless the council agreed not to spend money on a new badge for its mayor. That cannot be a proper use of a poll. Duston parish in Northampton was recently subjected to a poll on a planning issue. The poll was called by just one person and cost the council and hence the taxpayers well over £5,500.
  This amendment says that we should be realistic and sensitive to expenditure which is not necessarily needlessly incurred, but which is incurred through incorrect use of the mechanism. I suggest that there should be at least 50 local electors present and not one third of just six or seven; or, alternatively, 2 per cent of the electorate. That would be a powerful barrier to people fecklessly or recklessly seeking to call for that money to be spent.
  The National Association of Local Councils has represented parish and town councils for over 100
  928
  years. Today I received a letter from John Findlay, its chief executive, in which he says,
  "The legislation as it stands does not require such groups to demonstrate any significant public support for the poll, yet the cost to the local community can be as much as £7,000, depending on the size of the electorate".
  Therefore, while I am speaking on behalf of my friends Bill Rammell, the MP for Harlow, and Ed Borton, the chairman of the parish council, the amendment also has the backing of the whole of local government at that level. Their views should be heard and I hope that the Minister will recognise that we are taking this opportunity to air them.
  This Bill may not be the right vehicle and it may not be the right amendment. But if the Minister indicates sympathy for the principle—that is, to take away the power from people who may have the best of intentions but who needlessly call polls—then those outside the House and myself will be satisfied. I beg to move.
  9.45 p.m.
  Lord Rennard: My Lords, I should like briefly to support Amendment No. 264. I concur entirely with the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton.
  I have considerable scepticism of the democratic worth of referendums, but even they can be abused if it is too easy to call a referendum and thus incur considerable local costs. It may be, for example, that there is considerable local controversy as to whether or not to fill in the local duck pond, and that question may well best be settled by the holding of a parish poll. However, when questions are raised of the sort referred to by the noble Lord—indeed, I believe there is a euro-sceptic campaign to try to abuse the parish poll process to air issues which are totally inappropriate for parish polls—it is much more sensible to raise the threshold to perhaps 50 electors attending or 2 per cent of the electorate signing that they would like such a parish poll before their money can be spent on polls of that nature.
  Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, those who raise the issue of the duck pond must be "quackeirs"!
  Lord Bach: My Lords, perhaps I can intervene before any more remarks of that kind are made.
  Although he is not in his place, my noble friend Lord Bassam has told this House on more than one occasion that he was introduced to politics by a parish poll in the village in which he then lived. I, as a parish councillor over the past few years, was involved in a parish poll, which we lost, as to where a leisure centre should be sited. So such polls have a value.
  However, we have real sympathy with the concerns of my noble friend Lord Graham of Edmonton in relation to parish and town council polls. We too are aware of the recent events where a local group sought to use them to pursue its aims on the European single currency and I say no more about that.

  929
  The situation concerning those polls has shown that there is indeed a lack of clarity as to precisely when it is legal for polls to be called and it has given rise to real problems of uncertainty for parish clerks. It is they who must decide if a specific poll is a legitimate use of what are, after all, public funds provided by their community council's taxpayers.
  We are clear about two things. First, that parish polls can be a legitimate and effective way in which local people can rightly have a say about local issues which are vital to their communities and day-to-day lives. We want to see stronger democratic local governance, and parish polls can be part of that.
  Secondly, we are equally clear that it is an abuse for pressure groups to seek to further their aims at public expense, and some of the attempts to try to use parish polls do not seem to be anything else than such an attempt.
  We are therefore sympathetic to any measures which would strengthen the parish poll provisions and render them less susceptible to misuse. Indeed, given the recent events, we have received a number of representations on behalf of town and parish councils asking us to do just that. We have been asked to consider raising the threshold in order to prevent abuse of the current rules. We have been asked about the kind of questions which parish polls can be used to decide.
  What has not been made clear to us is what any higher threshold should be. Nor is there clear consensus about what questions a parish poll should be able to cover. So while the principles of how we should approach parish polls are clear, the details of how to achieve them are not. However, my noble friend's amendment puts forward what the House may consider to be a sensible view of the level of support that should be received.
  For those reasons, we cannot accept the particular suggestions that my noble friend makes tonight. But I can say that as the Government take forward their rural policies we will examine and consult widely on how the important parish polls provisions should be reformed so as on the one hand to provide certainty and prevent abuse and on the other to allow local people to have a real say about local issues which really matter.
  We believe that there should be robust and effective parish poll provisions. The whole House will be grateful to my noble friend for having raised the matter tonight.
  Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I sense that that is the best offer I shall have tonight. I accept it with gratitude and beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Schedule 20 [Penalties]:
  [Amendment No. 265 not moved.]
  Clause 153 [Orders and regulations]:
  Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 266:
  Page 116, line 2, leave out ("or 159(2)").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 266 I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 267 and 269. Amendment No. 269 contains an error; the second line should read "section 159(5)".
  In case your Lordships thought that during the past hour I had taken a vow of silence, I feel that I should make this final contribution to the Report stage. The amendment relates to the commencement orders bringing into force the various parts of the Bill. As presently drafted, there is no provision for parliamentary scrutiny of such orders. As the Minister has admitted, it is a distinct possibility that there will be a general election less than 12 months after the provisions of the Bill relating to expenditure limits come into force. In such a case, I think that it is the Government's intention to use the powers in Clause 159(5) to alter the political parties' expenditure limits when they make the commencement order so that the limits are reduced to take account of the shorter period between the commencement of Part V and the day of the poll.
  I have no objection to that in principle. However, I am concerned that any reduced limit should be weighted to take into account that the vast majority of parties' expenditure takes place in the few weeks immediately prior to a general election. In other words, I do not want £20 million to be divided into 12 and the necessary months given the one-twelfth. I should probably have fair agreement on that.
  I believe that it is the Government's intention after Royal Assent to seek the views of political parties on the appropriate level of the reduced expenditure. However, the reduced expenditure limits are important. At present, there is no mechanism in the Bill for Parliament to discuss them after they have been agreed. My amendment would provide that a commencement order which varies the election expenditure limits would be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. It is important that Parliament should scrutinise such a key change and it is hoped that there will be no complaints about that. I beg to move.
  Lord Bach: My Lords, as the noble Lord has explained, the effect of his amendments would be to apply the affirmative resolution procedure to any commencement order containing transitional provisions of the type envisaged by Clause 159(5). The purpose is to enable a commencement order to specify lower limits for campaign and controlled expenditure in the event that Parts V and VI are brought into force less than 365 days in advance of the next election. Like the noble Lord, I leave it to others to speculate as to the timing of the next election and, consequently, whether lower limits will be needed.
  By convention, commencement orders are not subject to any parliamentary procedure. A commencement order simply gives effect to legislation that Parliament has already fully debated and

  931
  approved. Once a Bill has been enacted Ministers are expected to get on with its implementation. We believe that it would be a constitutional absurdity to provide for the possibility that the implementation of an Act of Parliament could be delayed or frustrated by the operation of the affirmative resolution procedure.
  Clause 15915) does not justify a different approach in this case. It contains an entirely understandable and, in our view, routine transitional provision. We shall naturally want to consult the political parties on the limits to be applied to any truncated campaign period; indeed, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has already undertaken to do so. But the general approach is already set out in the Bill and we see no reason to submit the relevant commencement order to further parliamentary scrutiny. We would expect some back-end loading of the limits as the expectation must be that the majority of a party's expenditure will be incurred in the final few weeks of an election campaign. I should like to be able to persuade the noble Lord that there is nothing unusual about the commencement arrangements for this Bill, and I invite him to withdraw his amendment.
  Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. Speaking as a member of the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee, it is perfectly correct that in principle commencement orders are not subject to parliamentary scrutiny, but I have never seen a commencement order which contains authority to make transitional provisions. Orders that contain powers to make transitional provisions are usually subject to the negative, not affirmative, resolution procedure.
  Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, makes the point clearer than I did. I fully accept that normally these order-making powers do not come before Parliament, and I do not try to change that situation. However, this is unusual in that at some stage in the next month or two a decision will be taken to change the terms of the provision and the £20 million limit. I am grateful for confirmation of the position of the Home Secretary and the added confirmation that back-end loading is understood. However, I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, makes a valid point.
  Lord Bach: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, expresses a view with his usual force. However, the committee of which he is a member has approved the order-making power in this case, which we believe is sufficient. If the committee had not given its approval we would have had to think again.
  Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I do not know whether the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee considered it in the light of the fact that it was likely to change the £20 million limit quite dramatically, but we cannot continue that debate at Report stage. I am grateful for the two points that the noble Lord has put on record. I still regard it as a pity. Perhaps the negative resolution procedure would have
  932
  been a better approach. I have made my point and the Minister has responded. I just hope that the parties can reach agreement; if not, we may find ourselves in an unhappy position. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 267 not moved.]
  Lord Bach Lord Bach moved Amendment No. 268:
  Page 116, line 5, at end insert—
  ("() section 17(1),").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  [Amendment No. 269 not moved.]
  Lord Bach Lord Bach moved Amendment No. 270:
  Page 116, line 28, at end insert—
  ("() Nothing in this Act shall be read as affecting the generality of subsection (5) (including that subsection as applied by section 18(6)).").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  10 p.m.
  Schedule 21 [Minor and consequential amendments]:
  Lord Bach Lord Bach moved Amendment No. 271:
  Page 223, line 16, at end insert—
  (" . In section 14(8) of that Act (changes that may be recommended), for "section 13(1) above" substitute "section 13(1A) above".").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 271, I shall speak to Amendment No. 272. Amendment No. 271 is a minor drafting amendment to new Section 14(8) of the Local Government Act 1992 which was inserted by the Local Government Act 2000. In referring to Section 13(1) of the 1992 Act, new Section 14(8) omitted to take account of the changes made to Section 13 of the 1992 Act by the Bill.
  Amendment No. 272 has more substance. Noble Lords will recall that Part II of the Local Government Act 2000 makes provision for new forms of local government, including directly elected mayors. Sections 44 and 45 of the 2000 Act confer regulation-making powers on the Secretary of State so that detailed provision may be made for the conduct of elections and referendums in respect of directly elected mayors. We have already provided in Clauses 6 and 7 of the Bill for the electoral commission to be closely involved whenever delegated powers are exercised in respect of parliamentary and other elections. The requirement to consult the commission on such matters should extend to elections and referendums held under Part II of the Local Government Act 2000.
  Amendment No. 272 amends Sections 44 and 45 of that Act to this end. Noble Lords will note that the procedure for consulting the commission on the wording of a referendum question and on setting the spending limits in a referendum mirror the approach we have taken in respect of referendums conducted under Part VII of the Bill. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Bach Lord Bach moved Amendment No. 272:
  Page 225, line 26, at end insert—
  ("Local Government Act 2000 (c.22)
  .—(1) The Local Government Act 2000 is amended as follows.
  (2) In section 44 (conduct of elections of elected mayors or elected executive members), after subsection (3) insert—
  "(3A) Before making any regulations under this section, the Secretary of State shall consult the Electoral Commission.
  (3B) In addition, the power of the Secretary of State to make regulations under this section so far as relating to matters mentioned in subsection (2)(c) shall be exercisable only on, and in accordance with, a recommendation of the Electoral Commission, except where the Secretary of State considers that it is expedient to exercise that power in consequence of changes in the value of money.".
  (3) In section 45 (conduct of referendums under the Act), after subsection (8) insert—
  "(8A) Before making any regulations under this section, the Secretary of State shall consult the Electoral Commission, but this subsection does not apply to—

  (a) provisions which specify the wording of the question to be asked in a referendum, or

  (b) provisions for matters mentioned in subsection (8)(c).

  (8B) No regulations which specify the wording of the question to be asked in a referendum may be made under subsection (5) unless—

  (a) before laying a draft of the regulations before Parliament in accordance with section 105(6), the Secretary of State consulted the Electoral Commission as to the intelligibility of that question, and

  (b) when so laying the draft, the Secretary of State also laid before each House a report stating any views as to the intelligibility of that question which were expressed by the Electoral Commission in response to that consultation.

  (8C) Where any such regulations specify not only the question to be asked in a referendum but also any statement which is to precede that question on the ballot paper at the referendum, any reference in subsection (8B) to the intelligibility of that question is to be read as a reference to the intelligibility of that question and that statement taken together.
  (8D) No regulations which make provision for the matters mentioned in subsection (8)(c) may be made under subsection (5) unless—

  (a) before laying a draft of the regulations before Parliament in accordance with section 105(6), the Secretary of State sought. and had regard to, the views of the Electoral Commission as to the provision to be made by the regulations as to those matters, and

  (b) where the draft regulations laid before Parliament made provision as to those matters otherwise than in accordance with the views of the Electoral Commission, the Secretary of State, when so laying the draft, also laid before each House a statement of his reasons for departing from the views of the Commission.".

  (4) In section 45(9), after "(8)" insert "to (8C)".").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Schedule 22 [Repeals]:
  Lord Bach Lord Bach moved Amendment No. 273:
  Page 226, line 41, column 3, at end insert—
  ("Section 4(2).")
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 157 [General interpretation]:
  Lord Bach Lord Bach moved Amendments Nos. 274 and 275:
  Page 117, line 28, at end insert—
  (""exempt trust donation" has the meaning given by section (Interpretation: exempt trust donations);").
  Page 118, line 1, at end insert (", and "modify" shall be construed accordingly;").
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Clause 158 [Interpretation: donations]:
  Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 276:
  Page 119, line 20, at end insert—
  ("(6) For the purposes of this Act it is immaterial whether a donation received by a registered party or a person of any other description is so received in the United Kingdom or elsewhere.").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, I can be brief. The amendment adds a new subsection (6) to the interpretation clause relating to donations. The new subsection provides that for the purposes of the Bill it is immaterial whether a donation received by a registered party or other regulated donee is received in the United Kingdom or elsewhere. As a result of this provision, a registered party could not escape the provisions of Part IV by arranging for a donation to be paid into a foreign bank account. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Bach Lord Bach moved Amendment No. 277:
  After Clause 158, insert the following new clause—

  INTERPRETATION: EXEMPT TRUST DONATIONS
  (" .—(1) For the purposes of this Act "exempt trust donation" means a donation to which subsection (2) or (3) applies, other than one falling within subsection (5).
  (2) This subsection applies to any donation received from a trustee of any property in accordance with the terms of a trust—

  (a) which was created before 27th July 1999,

  (b) to which no property has been transferred on or after that date, and

  (c) whose terms have not been varied on or after that date,

  provided that, at or before the time of the receipt of the donation, the trustee gives the recipient of the donation the full name of the person who created the trust and of every other person by whom, or under whose will, property was transferred to the trust before that date.
  (3) This subsection applies to any donation received from a trustee of any property in accordance with the terms of a trust—

  (a) which was created by—

  (i) a person who was a permissible donor falling within section 52(2) at the time when the trust was created, or

  (ii) the will of a person falling within section 52(3), and

  935

  (b) to which no property has been transferred otherwise than—

  (i) by a person who was a permissible donor falling within section 52(2) at the time of the transfer, or

  (ii) under the will of a person falling within section 52(3),

  provided that, at or before the time of the receipt of the donation, the trustee gives the recipient of the donation the relevant information.
  (4) For the purposes of subsection (3) "the relevant information" means the information which is required by virtue of paragraph 2 of Schedule 6 to be given in respect of a recordable donation to which that subsection applies.
  (5) A donation falls within this subsection if it is received from a trustee of any property pursuant to the exercise of any discretion vested by a trust in him or any other person.
  (6) In this section—

  (a) "donation" means a donation for the purposes of the provisions of this Act in which the relevant reference to an exempt trust donation occurs;

  (b) "property", in the context of the transfer of property to a trust, does not include any income of the trust;

  936

  (c) "trust" includes a trust created by a will; and

  (d) any reference to a donation received from a trustee is a reference to a donation received from a trustee in his capacity as such, other than a donation transmitted on behalf of a beneficiary under a trust.").

  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Schedule 23 [Transitional provisions]:
  Lord Bach Lord Bach moved Amendments Nos. 278 to 280:
  Page 228, line 46, at end insert—
  ("(ii) (if the party is seeking to be so registered as a party with a campaigns officer) of a person to be registered as that officer; and").
  Page 228, line 49, at end insert ("and (if paragraph (a)(ii) applies) by the proposed campaigns officer").
  Page 229, line 2, after ("treasurer") insert ("and of an officer of the unit to be registered for the purposes of section 25(3)").
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  House adjourned at three minutes past ten o'clock.

  Young People in Employment
  Young People in Employment
  Sentencing Advisory Panel
  Sentencing Advisory Panel
  Abnormal Loads: Police Escorts
  Abnormal Loads: Police Escorts
  Science Budget
  Science Budget
  RAMC Site, Millbank: Sale
  RAMC Site, Millbank: Sale
  Porton Down Volunteers
  Porton Down Volunteers
  Racist Incidents on School Premises: Reporting Guidelines
  Racist Incidents on School Premises: Reporting Guidelines
  Dyslexia Association Teaching Methods
  Dyslexia Association Teaching Methods
  Shadow Strategic Rail Authority Competition: Safety Cases
  Shadow Strategic Rail Authority Competition: Safety Cases
  Shadow Strategic Rail Authority Competition: Road-going Cement Tanker Trailer
  Shadow Strategic Rail Authority Competition: Road-going Cement Tanker Trailer
  Mega 3 Rail Wagon
  Mega 3 Rail Wagon
  Antarctic Ozone Hole
  Antarctic Ozone Hole
  Coral Reef Systems and Climate Change
  Coral Reef Systems and Climate Change
  Traffic Calming Measures and Child Casualty Reduction
  Traffic Calming Measures and Child Casualty Reduction
  Mixed Sex Wards and the Case of Edward Butler
  Mixed Sex Wards and the Case of Edward Butler
  Munchausen's Syndrome by Proxy: Methods of Identification
  Munchausen's Syndrome by Proxy: Methods of Identification