Sitting of 26 October 2000

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

REPORT OF INQUIRY INTO BOVINE SPONGIFORM ENCEPHALOPATHY
Resolved,
That there shall be laid before this House a Return of the Report, evidence and supporting papers of the Inquiry into the emergence and identification of Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) and variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease (vCJD) in the United Kingdom, and the action taken in response to it up to 20th March 1996, by Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers.—[Mr. Nick Brown]

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

    New Deal
    Helen Jackson: What action is being taken to increase the support offered to young people in the new deal gateway. [132585]
    The Minister for Employment, Welfare to Work and Equal Opportunities (Ms Tessa Jowell): I know that we will all want to welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Speaker.
    I can announce today that 244,000 young people have moved from benefit into jobs, helped by the new deal and the Government's sound economic management. That means that there are now more people in work than ever before. The new deal is equipping young people with the skills to take up the jobs that are coming up all over the country. We will continue to improve and intensify the support for the increasing numbers of disadvantaged young people, tackling their problems of numeracy, literacy and basic employability, so that they can not just get a job but enjoy the prospect and opportunity of staying in work for the rest of their lives.
    Helen Jackson: Welcome, Mr. Speaker.
    Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the hallmarks of the Government was the speed with which they moved when they came to power in 1997 to get young people off the dole and give them a life with some hope? Some 477 people in my constituency are now in work and off the dole. What further steps will the
    366
    Government take to continue that programme, so that allowing youngsters to spend years on the dole becomes a part of history?
    Ms Jowell: I thank my hon. Friend for the support that she provides to the new deal in her constituency. When we came to office in 1997, 80,000 young people had been out of work for a year or more. The figure is now 6,500. However, the challenge is getting greater. About one in five young people comes to the new deal with barely the reading age of a seven-year-old. There are other types of disadvantage which mean that, as unemployment falls, so we must intensify and increase the help available to young people not just in my hon. Friend's constituency but throughout the country. The new deal will do that.
    Mr. John Hayes: I welcome and congratulate you, Mr. Speaker.
    Is the Minister familiar with the Industrial Society's critique of the new deal, published in two reports over the past few weeks? Is she aware that the society criticised the new deal in a number of ways, and revealed that 40 per cent. of jobs gained by new deal participants last less than 30 weeks? It also revealed that in the 20 areas of worst joblessness, unemployment is twice the national average. The society suggested, in particular, that the crucial gateway phase of the new deal is chronically underfunded. Is the Minister going to refute or disregard those findings from an independent and well-respected body, or does she have detailed proposals to deal with those particular problems?
    Ms Jowell: I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his first outing at the Dispatch Box. I have studied the Industrial Society report closely and I know that it has been selectively quoted by the hon. Gentleman. We are used to that from the Opposition, who offer no solution to long-term unemployment among young people, but only attack them and their right to opportunity. The Industrial Society praises the new deal, identifies the unique contribution of personal advisers, and praises the benefits reported by young people themselves. We recognise that in areas of low employment, the new deal must do more and work harder, which is why it is working with action teams, established by this Government, in the 40 districts where unemployment is at its highest.
    We will take no lessons from the Opposition on how to manage unemployment. Under the Conservatives, on three occasions the claimant count rose to 3 million in the 1980s and early 1990s. They failed to deal with unemployment, whereas we are tackling it. Long-term unemployment among young people is down by 70 per cent. since the election. That is a tribute to young people and we are proud of that.
    Mr. Speaker: That was a full and frank answer, but we have to get through the Order Paper.
    Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: My right hon. Friend will recall the meeting that I had with her and her civil servants about my proposals for a new deal overseas programme to allow thousands of our young

    367
    people and 50-plus new dealers to go overseas to work and train in third-world countries. Is there any progress on that front?
    Ms Jowell: I hope to be able to write to my hon. Friend very soon about his interesting and constructive proposals, and to build his ideas into the flexibility and diversity of help and support that we intend to continue to provide through the new deal.

    School Meals
    Mr. Michael Jack: What guidelines he issues on the proportion of children at a comprehensive school who should be able to sit down for school dinner within the allocated lunchtime break. [132586]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Jacqui Smith): The Government recognise the importance of an enjoyable and well-balanced school meal, and that is why we are introducing minimum nutritional standards for school lunches—the first for 20 years. However, it is for schools to decide how to organise the delivery of lunches to pupils who want them, so we have issued no guidelines on how many children should be served in the lunch break.
    Mr. Jack: I thank the Minister for that answer. I think that her Department is aware that the Lytham St. Anne's high technology college in my constituency, the largest comprehensive in Lancashire, is daily turned into what I can only describe as a culinary battleground, as there are seats for only one sixth of the 1,800 or so children to have a school dinner. The remainder who want to find a place to eat their sandwiches are scattered to the four winds in the rest of the site. That is unacceptable. The head and other senior staff members have to give up their dinner hour to supervise the maelstrom. Will the Minister be kind enough—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I have appealed for brief answers, and I also expect brief questions.
    Mr. Jack: The question will be brief, Mr. Speaker.
    Will the Minister be kind enough to get one of her officials to visit the school and see the chaos, and then have discussions with Lancashire county council to find a lasting solution to the problem?
    Jacqui Smith: I note that the right hon. Gentleman has taken a close interest in this problem. I understand that, despite the fact that the school has received more than £1 million to expand and more than £700,000 because its specialist status, the problem remains. Perhaps I can make some positive suggestions. The Government have already supported lunch facility improvements at 117 schools, through all phases of the new deal for schools. I do not believe that Lancashire applied for funding through that scheme. The expansion of direct capital funds for heads to spend—this year, for example, Lytham St. Anne's high school has had just over £30,000 from those funds—may prove a way forward.
    My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has announced that the funding will increase by two and a half times by 2003–04 and can be rolled over from year to year to fund larger projects. The seed challenge capital
    368
    process, which we have also extended to more schools—under which a contribution can be matched from funds from outside the school—may also be a way forward. Given the right hon. Gentleman's persistence, I am willing to ask one of my officials to visit the school to investigate the problem.
    Charlotte Atkins: The introduction of nutritional standards for school meals is a massive step forward. What research are the Government undertaking to boost the low take-up of free school meals? Will my hon. Friend applaud the hugely popular initiative by Squirrel Hayes first school in Biddulph, which has introduced a free breakfast service, which means that pupils are in on time and ready to start the day and learn appropriately?
    Jacqui Smith: My hon. Friend makes an important point and I commend the activities of that school in her constituency, which is one of very many schools being given the support that is provided through Education Extra and our partners, Kellogg's, to develop breakfast clubs. I agree that we also need to ensure that those children who are eligible for free school meals take them up. That is why the Department has funded the Child Poverty Action Group to carry out research into what prevents the take-up from being as full as it could be, and to come up with practical suggestions on how we can improve the situation by next spring.

    Disruptive Pupils
    Mr. Vernon Coaker: What plans he has to help schools to improve standards of behaviour. [132587]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Jacqui Smith): The Government have improved both in-school and off-site provision to help schools to tackle disruption. As part of a £174 million a year programme, we intend to create 1,000 on-site learning support units so that heads and teachers can remove pupils quickly when they are disrupting classes, but we have also expanded provision for excluded pupils: there are now 1,000 more places and 250 more teachers in out-of-school pupil referral units than in 1997. We intend that all excluded pupils will have full-time education by 2002. With more in-school welfare staff, we hope also to help schools to prevent problems before they happen.
    Mr. Coaker: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. It is good news that provision—such as learning support units and pupil referral units—is being made for pupils who cause problems in school. However, what plans does my hon. Friend have to consult directly with the young people who are excluded from school to find out about their experience and perception of the system? Does she agree that finding out what they believe to be among the causes of their alienation could help inform the provision that is made for them? They, too, are entitled to educational support, just as are those pupils who remain in school.
    Jacqui Smith: Given my hon. Friend's experience of working in schools, it is no surprise that he should ask such an important and sensible question. Departmental officials regularly meet young people who have been

    369
    excluded from school. Such meetings formed part of a recent review of the social exclusion pupil support fund, and in the future they will form part of a review of the standards in pupil referral units.
    In addition, it is important to note that we are working with partners in the voluntary sector to develop innovative programmes for excluded and disaffected young people. For example, we have made money available to Ultralab at Anglia university to bring together excluded young people using information and communication technology for both teaching and mentoring. We have also made available further funding for Rathbone to help the further development of what has been a very successful key stage 4 programme for young people at risk of disaffection. For the first time, that programme will be extended to children in the key stage 3 age group. Moreover, the historically large amount of money that the Government are putting into such projects means that, if successful, they have the potential to be expanded.
    Mr. Phil Willis: May I welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Speaker? You will get 100 per cent. support from me and my colleagues.
    Liberal Democrat Members appreciate the work being done to tackle the problem of disruptive behaviour in schools, to which there is no easy solution. However, does the Minister agree that two groups of young people need to be targeted? Children with special needs are seven times more likely to be excluded from school than other pupils, and Afro-Caribbean youngsters are four times more likely than others to be excluded because of poor behaviour. What are the Government doing for them? The chief inspector of schools refuses to turn the Ofsted spotlight on to the reasons for the exclusion of those young people and their poor behaviour. The Government cannot allow that to continue.
    Jacqui Smith: The hon. Gentleman is right to highlight those groups. We hope to have an impact on the unacceptable figure that he quoted with regard to children with special educational needs through the expanded funding that we have made available, improved teacher training and a greater concentration on early identification of those children's special needs.
    We were encouraged by the most recent figures on exclusions among young people from ethnic minorities, which showed that there had been a larger fall in exclusions among such children than in other groups. However, I agree that we must continue the efforts that we have already made—for example, with regard to identifying barriers to achievement for those young people. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we will do so.
    Kali Mountford: My hon. Friend will accept that the wide range of disturbed and disturbing behaviour among pupils of all ages would benefit from parental involvement in schools. In addition to the home-school contracts that already exist, what action would she encourage schools to take to improve their contact with parents and so deal with the behaviour that I have described?
    Jacqui Smith: My hon. Friend makes an important point. We take very seriously the issue of parents' involvement in their children's education. My hon. Friend will know that earlier this term, the Department made available to schools and parents a guide containing
    370
    information about the national curriculum. The aim was not to preach at parents but to give them practical tips on how to engage with their children's schools and learning. We want to ensure that standards are raised and, as my hon. Friend noted, to pre-empt those issues which make teaching very difficult and which can lead to disaffection.
    My hon. Friend is right: parents need to be involved. She referred to home-school agreements, but we have implemented a range of other, practical measures to involve parents in their children's schooling.

    Citizenship Education
    Mr. Roger Casale: What further plans he has to promote the teaching of democracy and citizenship in schools; and if he will make a statement. [132588]
    The Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. David Blunkett): Citizenship education will become part of the national curriculum for secondary schools from August 2002 in a discrete subject. We are making available £12 million to schools for personal, social and health education development, together with citizenship, £5 million of which will be earmarked for citizenship education and the preparation of materials.
    In addition, we are working with long-standing voluntary organisations on the development of schemes of work on a citizenship website and on seminars for teachers at regional level, as well as developing and spreading best practice from schools that are already implementing this in their own syllabuses.
    Mr. Casale: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. He will be aware of initiatives such as Scottish Charities Kosovo Appeal and London South-East Direct Aid to Kosovo, which are supported by many Members on both sides of the House. They are working to raise money in schools in this country, including Wimbledon Chase middle school in my constituency, to invest in the rebuilding of schools in Kosovo. In those rebuilt schools, some of the most important items on the curriculum will be the teaching of democracy and respect for human rights.
    If we seek to promote an understanding of democracy abroad with some authority, is it not incumbent on us to promote a better understanding of democracy in our own schools? Is it not a matter of regret that the Opposition Front Bench education team failed to turn up yesterday when the statutory instrument that gives rise to some of the measures that my right hon. Friend mentioned earlier was before the House?
    Mr. Blunkett: I am sure that there must have been some profound reason why the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) did not make it. It is probably best not to go into that this morning.
    These are important issues—the maintenance of our democracy, active citizenship and the encouragement of young people to take seriously their contribution to the community and understand how that fits in with the broader issues of world citizenship. That is why we are giving £50,000 to the Council for Education in World Citizenship to ensure that its continuing work can be developed and disseminated in schools.
    Mr. Tony Baldry: I do not think that anyone would quarrel with citizenship. However, if I may hark back to an earlier question, active citizenship must also involve parents. I was appalled to discover—and it is as much to my shame as anyone's—that at one comprehensive school in my constituency, 17 per cent. of pupils last year left without a single GCSE pass in any subject. At another school, 11 per cent. of pupils left without a GCSE pass in a single subject. When I asked one of the head teachers about this, he said that it was simply because quite a lot of pupils did not turn up because they were playing truant, and that there was a lack of parental support.
    Mr. Speaker: I must appeal again to hon. Members to ask a question, not make a mini-speech. The hon. Gentleman has made his point, and the Secretary of State will reply.
    Mr. Blunkett: I assure the hon. Gentleman that the measures that the Home Secretary and I announced last week will tackle the problem of truancy and ensure that children go to school. They will continue the programme to reduce the number of children who leave school without any qualification—it has already gone down from 8 per cent. to 5.6 per cent. under this Government. We want to ensure that if we can get children into school, they are taught well and imaginatively. We use vocational education to engage those who had previously been alienated by being unable to engage with the traditional curriculum.

    Connexions Service
    Mr. Phil Hope: If he will make a statement on the involvement of voluntary and statutory youth services in the new Connexions service. [132589]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. Malcolm Wicks): The Connexions service will work very closely with both the statutory youth services and local voluntary organisations. That is vital to the success of Connexions and is therefore central to our policy.
    On Monday, the 16 partnership areas invited to run the Connexions service from April 2001 were announced; they will, in total, receive £47 million more than the careers services in those areas currently receive.
    Mr. Hope: I thank my hon. Friend for his reply. He knows of my concern that the youth service was neglected and underfunded for so many years under the Tories. The Connexions service offers a real opportunity to combine the careers and youth services to provide a good transition from childhood to adulthood for many young people. Can my hon. Friend assure me that youth workers—who are being used in and embedded into the service—are not diverted from the effective youth work that they would otherwise be doing and that some youth projects will not fall by the wayside as an unintended consequence of the way in which the new Connexions service is being implemented?
    Mr. Wicks: We are ambitious about the future of the youth service. Whether it is statutory, voluntary or both, it is the way to study ways to prevent some of the
    372
    problems that face our young people. We should recognise that despite the excellent youth service work, the system nationally is patchy—some of it is not up to scratch. I hope to say more about the future of the youth service and its vital role in relation to Connexions in the coming weeks.
    Mrs. Theresa May: I also welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Speaker, and wish you well in the challenges that lie ahead.
    Connexions brings together the youth and careers services—the personal advisers. However, will the Minister confirm that advisers have been told to focus their work on disaffected young people and that as a result the mainstream majority of average to bright pupils who need careers advice will now be neglected? Is the Minister proud of creating a new group of socially excluded?
    Mr. Wicks: I will not confirm that statement because it is simply not true and it will mislead parents and teachers. Connexions has a major aim to help each and every young person aged 13 to 19 to make informed choices about learning options, education, the world of work and careers—each and every young person. Every school will get its fair share of the Connexions service. Within that, we have a special mission to help those young people who, because of socio-economic disadvantages, are not getting a fair deal. The Connexions service will also have a special mission to help young people of high ability—the particularly gifted—to make choices about learning. It is a universal service for each and every young person, with a special focus on helping those particular needs. That is the truth and it is important that we state it.
    Mr. Bob Blizzard: I welcome Monday's announcement that more than £300,000 is being allocated to Suffolk to set up the new Connexions service in my constituency and others. On the careers choice element of that service, does my hon. Friend agree that as well as looking at leaflets and ticking boxes to work out what interests them, our young people can also benefit when people from industry, public services and the armed forces go to schools, not merely into colleges? They can inspire young people to pursue such career paths. I have not seen that happening as much as it used to do. Will my hon. Friend give guidance to promote that sort of careers advice?
    Mr. Wicks: It is important that schools help young people to understand the economy and the world of work. Schools and Connexions need to work together to raise the quality of that sort of experience. Yes, there should be the traditional work experience, but as my hon. Friend says, we should enable people in different professions and occupations to go into schools and establish links with them. More companies and public services should help schools with that endeavour. It is an important point.

    School Transport
    Mr. David Heath: If he will review the requirements on local education authorities in respect of home-to-school transport. [132590]
    The Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. David Blunkett): Each of us has welcomed and congratulated you, Mr. Speaker. I am sure that one thing you will do is spot recidivism. I therefore congratulate the hon. Gentleman on asking the same question three times. The answer remains the same, at least in its preamble. We have no plans to review the legislation on home-to-school transport. The school travel advisory group has recommended a number of ways to promote more affordable, safe, environmentally friendly and acceptable forms of transport and, with the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, we shall wish to pursue those.
    Mr. Heath: Consistency is a virtue, is it not?
    Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the present system is the single biggest cause of friction between parents and local education authorities? It causes chaos outside many schools and penalises rural local education authorities. Roads and social conditions nowadays are very different from what they were in 1944. Is it not time that we had a serious look at the situation and produced plans for a comprehensive integrated system of the sort that so many other countries enjoy?
    Mr. Blunkett: I am strongly in favour of those at local level—schools and local authorities—considering a more integrated and imaginative way of dealing with that matter. However, 800,000 pupils use school transport every day and the latest estimates are that about £444 million of local and national money goes into school transport. It is a very complicated issue, which is why we have advised members of the hon. Gentleman's Front-Bench team not to say lightly that it can be delegated and devolved to schools, which could not co-ordinate, organise or produce exactly the kind of plans that the hon. Gentleman appears to be encouraging us to take up this morning.
    Mr. Barry Sheerman: Congratulations and welcome, Mr. Speaker.
    Can I persuade my right hon. Friend to continue with the impetus for a national strategy? He has been working closely with DETR, but the issue is important for children's health and safety and for reducing the dreadful congestion on our roads. This half-term, people can drive freely and quickly around the country, but they cannot do so when parents are taking their children to school. This is an important health and safety matter, and I hope that my hon. Friend continues his work with DETR to make a real change to benefit children's health.
    Mr. Blunkett: First, may I apologise for transferring the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) from one party to another in my remarks about the Opposition Front Bench. I shall keep my fingers crossed for him at the general election.
    My hon. Friend is entirely right—the safety and environmental issues are considerable. It is also important to ensure that there is less traffic on the roads at peak times is also important. Anyone who travels during this half-term will be aware of the difference that school runs make, especially in core cities. We therefore need to
    374
    examine how to integrate the way in which we encourage walking and safety, together with a reduction in pollution and congestion on our roads.
    Mrs. Ann Winterton: I congratulate you on your election, Mr. Speaker.
    Is the Secretary of State aware of the great safety issue with regard to school transport, which concern many parents, in that although vehicles are rightly fitted with seat belts, there is no one in authority to ensure that children use them? Parents beg children to do so; schools tell children to do so; but given that drivers must concentrate on driving only, more often than not children do not belt up. What can be done before there is a terrible accident, after which everyone will say, "This should not have been allowed to happen".
    Mr. Blunkett: As the hon. Lady will be aware, following tragedies in the past a tremendous campaign was run and agreement was reached on the provision of seat belts in vehicles that transport schoolchildren. We all—parents, not simply teachers—have a responsibility to educate children in the safe use of those vehicles. We cannot supervise children all the time in and out of situations that are external to the school, but we can encourage and support those who have influence over children—the prime educators, including parents—to get it right.
    Mr. Roy Beggs: I add my congratulations on your election, Mr. Speaker, and offer you best wishes for the future.
    Buses on which children travel to school are not fitted with seat belts in all parts of the United Kingdom. In fact, there is real concern among parents that their children are at risk, especially when standing in buses. What assessment has been made of the cost of a policy of ensuring that every child travelling to school on a public service vehicle is guaranteed a seat fitted with a seatbelt?
    Mr. Blunkett: I do not have that information, but I will write to the hon. Gentleman. However, the contracting systems often lead to the lowest contract price being chosen. That is a real issue in some parts of the country. We are aware of the difficulty in ensuring that we match safety and cost in an acceptable fashion.
    There is no doubt that translating every available public service vehicle to other uses—that, of course, is part of the effort to integrate school transport into the wider transport needs of dispersed communities—would be very expensive. I shall, however, consult my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister and write to the hon. Gentleman with the information that he seeks.

    Class Sizes (Devon)
    Mr. Ben Bradshaw: What progress has been made in reducing primary class sizes in Devon; and if he will make a statement. [132592]
    The Minister for School Standards (Ms Estelle Morris): The number of primary pupils in classes of 31 or more in Devon has fallen by 6,500 since January 1998. The reduction for infant classes has been even

    375
    greater, with only 810 children in classes of 31 or more in January this year, compared with more than 5,600 in January 1998.
    Mr. Bradshaw: Parents and teachers in Exeter are pleased that the Government have more than delivered on their class size pledge, and that they have done so ahead of time. Four years ago, some of my classes had more than 40 pupils. There has also been a significant impact on standards. What will my right hon. Friend do to ensure that the figures continue to fall and that standards continue to rise?
    Ms Morris: I thank my hon. Friend for that question. I am delighted that standards are increasing in schools in his constituency, 14 of which have extra teachers as a result of the class size policy, and two of which have extra classrooms. That is key to realising the essential good start that children need in their education. I assure my hon. Friend that class sizes for very young children will remain central to our standards policy.
    Mr. Anthony Steen: Class sizes may be going down in Exeter but they are going up in south Devon. Is the Minister aware that 90,000 new homes are proposed for Devon but that schools in my constituency are already crammed to the gunnels and that children are already having to travel two hours each way by bus to get to school? Is not the best way to make progress to rehabilitate schools such as the Stoke Fleming primary school? School sites that already exist should be developed and more children should go to those schools, which are already good and performing well. Does the Minister accept that she will not succeed in reducing class numbers unless she either builds new schools or refurbishes old ones?
    Ms Morris: Just to be clear, class sizes in Devon in infant, junior and primary schools have gone down. It is a local authority's responsibility to plan places for children who move into an area.
    I am not familiar with the school that the hon. Gentleman named, but if he writes to me about it, I shall address the matter. The class size policy has resulted in extra classrooms being built. New schools are being built across the country to deal with the mobility problem to which the hon. Gentleman referred.
    Mr. Bill Rammell: May I first congratulate you, Mr. Speaker?
    I welcome the fall in class sizes in Devon and throughout the country. Does it not beggar belief to hear criticisms from Conservatives who, during the previous Parliament, said that class size did not matter?
    Has my right hon. Friend observed developments in the American presidential election, where commitments are being made to reduce class sizes to fewer than 20 pupils? Perhaps we should consider building on the substantial achievements that we have already made in primary schools and seek, in the next Parliament, to reduce class sizes in primary schools even further.
    Ms Morris: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that. The Opposition would, of course, abolish the standards fund, which would remove the means of funding reductions in
    376
    class sizes in infant schools, which is key to the standards agenda. We were right to concentrate on class sizes for five, six and seven-year-olds because evidence from Ofsted shows that that is where class sizes matter most.
    Our standards fund initiative also involves placing 20,000 extra classroom assistants in primary schools. Many primary school heads also welcome extra adults in the classroom. I suspect that in future that imaginative combination of placing well-skilled and well-trained adults in primary schools and increasing the number of teachers—both those efforts were achieved by this Government—will help to realise our key aims, which include high standards.
    Mr. James Clappison: Earlier, the right hon. Lady discussed the dangers of being selective, but is she not running just that risk? Although primary school classes have gone down in Devon, secondary class sizes have gone up by more than the amount by which primary class sizes have been reduced and by more than the average secondary school class size increase in the rest of England. Is it the right hon. Lady's case that secondary class sizes do not matter? Or is she going to admit now that, taking secondary and primary class sizes together, the Government's policy has failed? Will she now admit that failure to the parents and pupils in Devon?
    Ms Morris: A conversion—not only do the Opposition think that primary school class size matters, but they now believe that secondary school class size matters, too. That is a policy announcement. No, I was not being selective; the question was about primary school class sizes, which is why I did not refer to secondary school class sizes, but I shall do so now as the hon. Gentleman has asked me.
    In Devon—indeed, across the country—if schools choose to use the special grant which the Secretary of State has made available to them, they could not only reduce that increase but double it. They could reduce class sizes by 0.8 per cent. The special grant puts the decision in the hands of head teachers who lead our secondary schools, so if they choose to make class sizes smaller that is their choice. The money is theirs. It is not ring-fenced; it is used for standards. If teachers choose to use it to reduce class size, they will do that. We will then have achieved classes of under 30 for infants and reduced class sizes in key stages 1 and 2, and put resources into secondary schools for heads to use at their discretion to reduce class sizes if they so wish.

    Teaching Standards
    Dr. Phyllis Starkey: If he will make a statement on his plans to raise standards in teaching in further education and sixth-form colleges. [132594]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. Malcolm Wicks): The Department's further education standards fund, which is targeted at improving quality in colleges, is already contributing to rising standards. The fund will increase to £160 million in 2001–02. That is a significant investment alongside the recent £50 million increase in funding for further education lecturers' pay. We are committed to

    377
    further action and will announce a qualifications and professional development policy for FE lecturers next month.
    Dr. Starkey: I thank my hon. Friend for that response. I am sure he will agree that further education is important as a route into higher education for a number of pupils from disadvantaged groups. It is extremely important that standards are improved. Will my hon. Friend confirm that one third of full-time teachers in further education currently lack professional teaching qualifications? Is that not a further demonstration of the dereliction of duty on the part of the Tory Government who failed to invest properly in providing education across the board for all?
    Mr. Wicks: I can confirm that one third of FE teachers have no teaching qualification, and I take my hon. Friend's points about the Tory party during its lamentable stewardship. What is crucial is that the FE sector now has a vital role to play with the establishment of learning and skills councils, meeting the needs and demands of local economies and communities. It is a sector for the future. We have to place a special emphasis on quality and qualifications, so that we can raise the status of the sector, as we must, and of this important professional group of people.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: Surely the Minister is ignoring the crisis in FE colleges. He will know of the excellent Weymouth college in my constituency where the group of people doing the majority of sixth-form teaching are FE lecturers. What of their standards of pay? The additional funding that has gone into all sorts of schools initiatives has passed them by. They are now in competition with people starting up new sixth forms where the teachers are much better paid. That is a continuing crisis. The Government said that they would solve it, but they have not. They have done nothing about it. It gets worse and worse. When will we get some action rather than warm words?
    Mr. Wicks: Not done anything about it? Fifty million pounds extra is going into FE teachers' pay. That is doing something about it, and that is only phase 1. We recognise that those teaching young people both in sixth-form colleges and in further education colleges are making the point about salary vis-a-vis those teaching in the school sector. We are aware of that. That is why the Secretary of State has provided extra money for FE teachers' pay, but it has to be related to quality and we are working up proposals on that. There is more money; we are doing something about it.

    Specialist Schools
    Jane Griffiths: How many specialist schools have been created since May 1997. [132595]
    Valerie Davey: How many specialist schools have been created since May 1997. [1325971
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. Michael Wills): I too offer my congratulations to you, Mr. Speaker.
    378
    Since May 1997, the number of designated specialist schools has increased by 354. There are now 535 in operation, which puts us well on course to meet our new target to have 1,000 specialist schools by September 2004.
    Jane Griffiths: May I also welcome you to your new position, Mr. Speaker?
    I thank my hon. Friend for his reply, which will be welcomed in my constituency by the talented young people of Reading and Woodley, who have long awaited this expansion of specialist schools. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is a clear demonstration that the Government do not only deliver what they promise, but, as regards the future of our children, they deliver far more than they promise?
    Mr. Wills: My hon. Friend will not be surprised to hear that I do agree with her on that point. We have done much, because we realise the role that specialist schools can play in our drive to push up standards. That is why we are expanding them. There were 181 in 1997; at present, there are 535; and by 2004, there will be 1,000.
    Valerie Davey: I, too, offer you congratulations, Mr. Speaker.
    Cotham school in Bristol, .West recently gained specialist performing arts status, thanks to an excellent bid that included collaboration with—among others—another secondary school, primary schools and a specialist school. Will my hon. Friend clarify how good practice in specialist schools is shared? Is there any evidence of benefits to other schools in an area?
    Mr. Wills: I thank my hon. Friend for those comments. The bid was indeed excellent; that is why it succeeded. We do not approve every bid; they each have to meet certain criteria, key among which is that they make a community contribution. A third of the budget must be spent on developing good practice in other schools and within the wider community. We have just heard of an example of that in Bristol.
    There is another example in Reading where, last year, 200 adult trainees attended a 10-week evening course on computing at the Prospect school. That has obvious benefits for the wider community. In Reading, 28 primary schools, three secondary schools and one special school also benefited from the funding awarded to the Prospect school.
    Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: St. Peter's school in my constituency is delighted to have received specialist status. I hope that George Abbot school will also receive favourable consideration from the Minister.
    Why does the Minister not take the policy further by adopting the Conservative programme of free schools, which would give extra money to every school in the country? Our programme would allow each school to play to its specialist strength and would create the diversity in our maintained sector that parents evidently want.
    Mr. Wills: The answer is quite simply because it would cause chaos. The hon. Gentleman has misunderstood the whole role of specialist schools. It is fundamental in driving up standards, which the Conservatives failed

    379
    to do, so there is absolutely no question of our adopting any Conservative policies from the past or the present—or, indeed, the future.
    Mr. Tim Boswell: I welcome you, Mr. Speaker.
    Does the Minister not realise the mayhem caused for eight local education authorities and many of their constituent schools by the sudden announcement, at the very end of last term, that their pupil numbers in specialist schools were to be capped at only 30 per cent? Ministers will be aware that two schools in my constituency—Kingsbrook and Chenderit—were particularly affected, although I hope that there is some light at the end of the tunnel for them.
    Leaving aside that specific issue, will the Minister address the principle? Why does his Department seek—albeit only in certain cases—to ration the number of specialist schools? Would it not be more sensible to enable any school that wants to attain specialist status, and whose bid reaches the necessary quality standards, to do so?
    Mr. Wills: I believe that the hon. Gentleman has been in correspondence with the Department and I hope that he received the reassurance he sought in respect of the school in Northamptonshire LEA.
    On the question of principle, the measure is temporary and is not a rationing. Under the previous Government, specialist schools were rationed by funding. We have made funding available to expand the numbers dramatically from 181 to 1,000 by 2004. In 1997, the budget was £33 million, which we have more than doubled to over £75 million in this financial year. That is not rationing, but giving schools the resources to expand so they deliver for all our pupils.
    The measure to which the hon. Gentleman refers is a temporary one for this phase of funding only and was introduced precisely because we want to ensure that every part of the country has equitable funding. [Interruption.] As usual, the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) is muttering away to no good effect, and would do better to listen and learn how specialist schools can benefit the children of this country, which is something that her policies are signally failing to do.

    Education Services (Leeds)
    Mr. Hilary Benn: Who will take the decision as to whether the provision of education services in Leeds returns to the local education authority once the contract with the joint venture company ends. [132596]
    The Minister for School Standards (Ms Estelle Morris): Leeds city council will be responsible for ensuring that services to schools are delivered on its behalf to an agreed specification through a contract with the proposed joint venture company. Towards the end of the contract, the Secretary of State and the council will need to reach a view on arrangements for the future delivery of services.
    Mr. Benn: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, as we all want an effective and democratically accountable
    380
    service within the city. Does she agree that the establishment of the new arrangements in Leeds would be greatly assisted if staff in the education department were to be seconded to the new partnership rather than have their employment transferred, with all the complexities that that would create, not least for their pensions?
    Ms Morris: First, may I put on record my appreciation for the help that my hon. Friend has given in a difficult period for Leeds LEA. The key point is that we must keep our eye on what matters, which is that schools, governors and children in Leeds get better support than they have had in the past. Of course, we shall need to ensure that the new joint venture company, which will consist of Leeds city council and another partner, has the powers to direct and manage the staff who will raise standards. That will be central to our decision, but we also want to ensure that staff receive the protection to which they are legally entitled. The way in which those two things come together is under discussion at the moment, and I know that my hon. Friend would not want me to say anything today that would stop a proper decision being arrived at in, I hope, the near future.
    Mrs. Theresa May: Of course, as the Minister says, it is right that we focus on the needs of children in Leeds. However, we must be clear that outsourcing is necessary as the result both of a highly critical Ofsted report that showed local Labour councillors failing local children and of perceptions of political interference. Does the Minister accept that grabbing headlines by outsourcing services in Leeds and other LEAs such as Southwark and Sandwell while leaving Labour councillors in charge will fail local children? Is not the best thing for children in Leeds and other LEAs to set the schools free from the LEA, let heads, governors and teachers get on with providing children in Leeds with what they need to achieve rising standards in school and a good quality of education, and get rid of the political interference from Labour politicians?
    Ms Morris: I am sure that the Conservative leader of Bradford city council, where we are also intervening, will be pleased to hear that a spokesperson down in Westminster has just done her out of a job.
    The hon. Lady was unfair to the many local authorities in the north, the midlands and the south that have received outstanding reports from Ofsted. When run well, local authorities can be genuine partners that work with schools to raise standards. However, they cannot do that by themselves and the difference between this Government and the previous one is that we will act when local authorities fail to discharge their functions effectively. Many local authorities on which we are intervening were poor local authorities under the previous Government, who took no action. As a result, schools went without the local authority support that they needed.
    The combination needed for high standards is good schools, schools managing themselves, heads with the ability and resources to manage schools, and good LEAs supporting them in that. We have made it clear that local authorities should be allowed to do their job when they do it well. However, when they do not, we will intervene, act and make sure that schools receive the support that they need.

    Nursery Nurses
    Ms Julia Drown: What steps the Government are taking to increase career opportunities for nursery nurses in education. [132598]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Ms Margaret Hodge): May I warmly welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Speaker?
    We are working with local education authorities and relevant agencies to develop a training and qualifications framework for nursery nurses and other teaching assistants based on occupational standards and national vocational qualifications.
    We are also working with the Early Years National Training Organisation to develop a route into higher education and training for those early-years practitioners, including nursery nurses, who wish to go down that road.
    Ms Drown: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply, and I thank the Government for all the steps that they have taken to increase the amount of child care available in my constituency and to raise the status of child care workers. Will my hon. Friend consider any new proposals that are brought to her that would raise further the status of child care workers, especially in view of the contribution that nursery nurses make to raising numeracy and literacy standards and to giving special needs care throughout the country? Will she consider new proposals that would not limit so many nursery nurses to a salary of just £12,500?
    Ms Hodge: I warmly endorse what my hon. Friend has said about the contribution that nursery nurses have made, as have other teaching assistants, to raising standards in our schools and nurseries. I am as anxious as she is to raise the status of early-years workers, including nursery nurses. That is why we have established a climbing frame of qualifications that enables nursery nurses, through employment-based training, to rise into other occupations in education, health or social work.
    Dr. Evan Harris: I, too, offer you my congratulations, Mr. Speaker.
    I am interested in the Minister's reply. She will know that I recognise the work that the Government have done, in contrast to the previous Government's lack of action on child care and nursery education. However, does she understand the problem of a group of nursery teachers in my constituency who are doing a part-time higher education degree course, but who lose all their salary and sometimes their pension arrangements when they have to fulfil that part of their degree that requires full-time participation? Will she consider any funding or other scheme to allow those nursery teachers who are training part-time, but have to do full-time attachments, to continue their education?
    Ms Hodge: We are certainly considering the matter and we are in discussion with higher education institutions to enable nursery nurses to undertake higher education via an employment-based route. If there are problems in
    382
    nursery nurses doing that, I would warmly welcome the hon. Gentleman's writing to me. We will see whether we can tackle those problems.

    Schools Special Grant
    Mr. David Taylor: What range of amounts per pupil will result from the planned method of allocation for the increased special payments to head teachers announced in the spending review for (a) primary and (b) secondary schools; and if he will make a statement. [132599]
    The Minister for School Standards (Ms Estelle Morris): As there is no maximum size of school, it is not possible to give a precise range, but teachers in both the primary and secondary sector have welcomed the special grant that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced recently.
    Mr. Taylor: The 44 primary schools in North-West Leicestershire give a warm welcome to the extra resources in the classroom to which my right hon. Friend has referred, but they are concerned about the sharp gearing in the system, which means that the loss of the 100th pupil can mean the loss of £6,000 of income. Will she undertake to review that aspect of the scheme and reassure Leicestershire Members of Parliament that our chronic underfunding of primary schools—£150 per pupil and £6 million in the county overall— will be addressed soon?
    Ms Estelle Morris: I acknowledge that my hon. Friend has a record of speaking in the House in support of improved funding for Leicestershire. We will of course keep things under review, but we were keen to keep the special grant as simple as possible. It has been widely welcomed. It is additional money on top of that already directed through local authorities through the standard spending assessment and then through local management of schools to local schools. Primary and secondary schools welcome the assurance that they will have the money for the next two years, but, as ever, and as we did last year, we will certainly keep things under review.
    Miss Anne McIntosh: When revising the grant in future, will the Minister be prepared to accept an element of rurality in allocating the grant, so that the problems of sparsely populated rural areas are taken into account when devolving such a formula to schools?
    Ms Morris: No, that is properly reflected in the standing spending assessment and that is where it should be reflected. This is a special grant that is given on top of SSA funding. It is sent directly to schools; it is not earmarked. It is additional to all the other resources that schools have received. We ought to keep the grant simple. I do not want to set up a bureaucratic formula about which we shall have to argue again. Let us consider the needs of rural schools, but let us keep them within the SSA framework and let us keep the special grant as simple as possible and get it into schools with the minimum of bureaucracy.

BSE Inquiry Report
12.30 pm
The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Nick Brown): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement on the report of the BSE inquiry, chaired by Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers.
Today, the Government are publishing the report, and I want to announce our initial response and to outline a package of measures for the benefit of people suffering from variant CJD and their families, as well as the families of people who have already died of the disease. This is not, however, the occasion to announce the Government's substantive response to the inquiry's report. That will come later.
I should like to express the Government's thanks to Lord Phillips, Mrs. June Bridgeman and Professor Malcolm Ferguson-Smith for their thorough inquiry, which has occupied them for the best part of the past three years.
As the Government recognised when setting up the inquiry, BSE is a national tragedy. To date, 85 definite or probable cases of variant CJD have been reported in the United Kingdom. Of those 85, 80 people have died. An unknown number of cases are yet to come. It is not possible to give precise forecasts because of the many uncertainties about the disease. I know that the whole House will join me in expressing deepest sympathy to those who have fallen victim to variant CJD, and to their families.
BSE has also had a serious impact on many tens of thousands of people whose livelihoods depend on the rearing of livestock and the processing and manufacturing of meat products.
The inquiry was set up by my right hon. Friends the Members for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) and for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) and the then Secretaries of State for Scotland, for Wales and for Northern Ireland. Its remit was to establish and review the history of the emergence and identification of BSE and new variant CJD and to reach conclusions on the adequacy of the response, taking into account the state of knowledge at that time. The inquiry report comprises 16 volumes and some 4,000 pages. Volume 1 sets out the key findings and conclusions.
I shall quote directly from the report's executive summary. The key conclusions are:
BSE developed into an epidemic as a consequence of an intensive farming practice—the recycling of animal protein in ruminant feed. This practice, unchallenged over decades, proved a recipe for disaster.
In the years up to March 1996 most of those responsible for responding to the challenge posed by BSE emerge with credit. However, there were a number of shortcomings in the way things were done.
At the heart of the BSE story lie questions of how to handle hazard—a known hazard to cattle and an unknown hazard to humans. The Government took measures to address both hazards. They were sensible measures, but they were not always timely nor adequately implemented and enforced.
The rigour with which policy measures were implemented for the protection of human heath was affected by the belief of many prior to early 1996 that BSE was not a potential threat to human life.
The Government was anxious to act in the best interests of human and animal health. To this end it sought and followed the advice of independent scientific experts—sometimes when decisions could have been reached more swiftly and satisfactorily within government.
384
In dealing with BSE, it was not MAFF's policy to lean in favour of the agricultural producers to the detriment of the consumer.
At times officials showed a lack of rigour in considering how policy should be turned into practice, to the detriment of the efficacy of the measures taken.
At times bureaucratic processes resulted in unacceptable delay in giving effect to policy.
The Government introduced measures to guard against the risk that BSE might be a matter of life and death not merely for cattle but also for humans, but the possibility of a risk to humans was not communicated to the public or to those whose job it was to implement and enforce the precautionary measures.
The Government did not lie to the public about BSE. It believed that the risks posed by BSE to humans were remote. The Government was preoccupied with preventing an alarmist over-reaction to BSE because it believed that the risk was remote. It is now clear that this campaign of reassurance was a mistake. When on 20 March 1996 the Government announced that BSE had probably been transmitted to humans, the public felt that they had been betrayed. Confidence in government pronouncements about risk was a further casualty of BSE.
Cases of a new variant of CJD (vCJD) were identified by the CJD Surveillance Unit and the conclusion that they were probably linked to BSE was reached as early as was reasonably possible. The link between BSE and vCJD is now clearly established, though the manner of infection is not clear.
Those are direct quotations from Lord Phillips's executive summary.
The Government welcome the report. We will be studying its findings with care and looking closely at the lessons that flow from them. It is right that the House, and the wider public, should have the opportunity to do so. They are important findings and they address some fundamental questions about the adequacy of the response to BSE.
The report contains many lessons for public administration. We will be focusing our response on areas including the implementation of policy decisions; the process of contingency planning; co-ordination across Departments and other agencies; the assessment, management and communication of risk; the role of scientific advisory committees; and the Government's assessment and use of scientific advice.
Even now, there are some unresolved questions about BSE. We do not know with certainty how the disease entered the cattle herd, or why it has been so predominantly a disease affecting this country. Lord Phillips's conclusion is that the origin of BSE is likely to have been a new prion mutation in cattle, or possibly sheep, in the early 1970s. In the light of that conclusion, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and I will be commissioning an independent assessment of current scientific understanding, including emerging findings, of the origins of the BSE epidemic. That study will then be considered by the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee, and published.
Although it was beyond the remit of the inquiry to examine current public protection measures, I know that the House will want to know that the chairman of the Food Standards Agency advises that the report gives rise to no immediate need for new food safety measures. He intends to discuss that aspect of the report at the next public meeting of the agency's on-going review of BSE controls.
Both the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee and the Food Standards Agency board propose to review relevant elements of the report. We will take

385
account of any conclusions or advice that they wish to offer in the Government's response to the report. The same applies to Select Committees.
The Government will announce their substantive response to the report in the coming months. Following that announcement, the House will have an early opportunity to debate in Government time both the report and the Government's response. However, there is one element in the report that the Government are singling out for attention now: the care of patients suffering from variant CJD and support for the families caring for them.
The needs of variant CJD victims were frequently insufficiently addressed, especially in the early days of the disease. The rapidly degenerative nature of variant CJD requires timely and accurate diagnosis and a swift response from local health and social services departments. Patient care has been variable in the past and not always responsive enough to the rapidly changing needs of patients.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health issued new guidelines in August to improve the care of variant CJD victims. The Government now intend to go further.
I can tell the House that, given the special circumstances of those patients, my right hon. Friend will establish a new national fund for the care of victims of variant CJD. The fund will ensure a speedy response to diagnosis and improvements in the quality of care for patients. This package will be co-ordinated through the national CJD surveillance unit in Edinburgh.
The new national care fund will be used to purchase care and equipment appropriate to the individual needs of variant CJD patients. The fund will be held by the CJD surveillance unit care co-ordinator, supported by a new national network of experts available to support local clinicians and local social services caring for patients wherever they live.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health met families of variant CJD victims and representatives of the Human BSE Foundation yesterday to discuss the new package of care. Over the next few weeks, his Department will be working with the families affected to refine the package to ensure that it is effective and properly meets the needs of patients.
This dreadful disease has a devastating effect on victims and their families. The families have campaigned for improved diagnosis and care for those who may yet be affected by this national tragedy. I am sure that the House will want to acknowledge the dignified and constructive way in which they have done so.
In addition to the enhanced care package, we are determined to provide appropriate support for those who are suffering from variant CJD, for those who care for them, and for the families of those who have already died.
The Government therefore intend to put in place financial arrangements to benefit sufferers from variant CJD, and their families, taking account of their particular needs in individual cases.
The Government's preferred option would be to establish a compensation scheme, resulting in a special trust fund, which could amount to millions of pounds. There are a number of possible options. We intend to work closely with the families affected to identify the best way forward. The first discussions with the families and their representatives will take place next week.
386
The Government want to express their appreciation for the co-operation of all witnesses who have been called before the inquiry. Although the inquiry team states that—this is a direct quote—
any who have come to our Report hoping to find villains or scapegoats, should go away disappointed,
the report does make a number of specific criticisms of a number of individuals.
I shall not comment on individual cases. The report contains an annexe listing those who are criticised. Some of the individuals who are criticised also receive praise from the inquiry, but there is no corresponding list of individuals who are praised. Elsewhere, the report identifies shortcomings that do not amount to criticisms, and therefore do not feature in the annexe. For both these reasons, it is important that the report is considered in its entirety.
Whenever serving public servants are subjected to criticism by a public inquiry, the question arises whether any form of disciplinary action should be taken. The report states:
If those criticised were misguided, they were nonetheless acting in accordance with what they conceived to be the proper performance of their duties.
However, mindful of the importance of the issues covered by the inquiry, an independent person, Sheila Forbes, a civil service commissioner, will lead a review and advise accordingly. The Government want the review to be carried out quickly, across the Departments involved.
The devolved Administrations also received the report and will respond for their interests.
Hon. Members will also wish to know that I am today sending copies of the report to the European Commission, the European Parliament and the Governments of each European Union member state. In addition, I have arranged for the report to be placed on the internet, accessible via the MAFF website.
On taking office in 1997, this Government put consumers at the heart of decision making on food safety issues. We have established the independent Food Standards Agency. We have opened up our scientific advisory committees, including the appointment of consumer representatives. We put scientific advice to Government in the public domain, encouraging a culture of openness, trusting the public and stimulating informed public debate. The "deregulation culture" that called for a "bonfire of regulations" has been replaced by a proportionate approach that strives for better regulation, with the protection of the public at its heart. We have put in place working arrangements to encourage the sharing of ideas and information between Government Departments and other agencies.
The inquiry has made a very thorough assessment of the history of BSE and of the response of the Government of the day. It has added greatly to our understanding of this detailed and complex area. Work is already under way across the whole of government to follow up on the inquiry's findings. Most importantly, today, we are setting in hand improved packages of care and arrangements for financial support for victims of variant CJD and their families. I commend the inquiry's report to the House.
12.46 pm
Mr. Tim Yeo: We welcome the publication of the report. We congratulate Lord Phillips and his team on producing a comprehensive document. I had my first chance to see it earlier this morning. Although I have had less than two hours to study the document, which runs to 16 volumes and which took more than two years to prepare, what I have seen is clear, comprehensive and, so far as I can judge, fair.
I welcome the Minister's statement, and I agree with much of it. I especially agree with his view that the report should be considered in its entirety. I believe that the report makes it clear that civil servants, other advisers and Ministers acted honourably and in good faith. I agree with the report that we must avoid judging individuals with the benefit of hindsight. Nevertheless, I recognise that mistakes were made, some of which had tragic consequences.
I accept the criticisms that are made in the report. I draw attention, as the Minister has done, to a section of paragraph 1292, which reads:
Although we have made a number of individual criticisms in respect of risk communication, the lessons to be learned are based on hindsight and relate to the overall approach of reassurance that was adopted. We do not consider that individuals should be criticised for following that approach.
However, I am truly sorry for what has happened. I apologise to the families that have suffered bereavement and to those people who are still fighting a terrible illness.
Until I have studied the report more carefully, it would be wrong to try to comment on all its conclusions. Our task now is to find ways of minimising and alleviating the suffering and distress of victims of variant CJD and of their families. Secondly, we must identify and take all steps possible to reduce the risk of any similar crisis occurring in future.
I welcome the Government's decision to arrange compensation. I am sure that the Minister will give details of that as soon as he is able to do so. Does the Minister believe that Lord Phillips's conclusions have any implications for responsibilities now exercised by civil servants who may still be in post? Does he agree that one of the strongest messages from the report is about inadequate co-ordination between Government Departments, and sometimes inadequate communication between different branches of government? Does he believe that there are lessons to be learned, even now, about how relations between Whitehall Departments could be improved and about how the process of making decisions based on scientific advice could be made more transparent?
Will the Minister confirm that the report states that changes in rendering methods did not cause BSE? Is he satisfied that civil servants who may be worried about whether their advice is being wrongly ignored have the right channels for raising their concerns? Does he believe that the scientific advice given to Ministers should more frequently be made available to the public as well? When will the Government be giving their definitive response to the report? Finally, I assure the House that the Opposition are as keen as anybody else to ensure that the full lessons
388
of the report and of the entire tragic episode are properly learned. I hope that there will a full debate as soon as possible.
Mr. Brown: I assure the hon. Gentleman that there will be a full debate in the House as soon as possible. Discussions about that and the response will be held through the usual channels.
I thank the hon. Gentleman for the tone of his response, for the welcome that he has given to Lord Phillips's report and for his congratulations to Lord Phillips. We shall not give the Government's full response now; we need time. There are approximately 167 different recommendations, which require a considered response and we want to think carefully about everything that Lord Phillips has said.
The hon. Gentleman acknowledges that mistakes were made. He is right to say that, with the benefit of hindsight, we can understand things that might not have been clear at the time when they were happening, but we must all learn the lessons, and that is why the report is so helpful. He has said that he is sorry for what has happened and I should like to identify the whole House with that expression of sorrow: our hearts go out to the victims, their friends and families and others who grieve for them.
The hon. Gentleman has welcomed our enhanced care package and the compensation element that goes with it. He is correct to assume that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health will want to say more as discussions with the families and their representatives continue.
Serving members of the civil service have, of course, been isolated from BSE inquiry work since the establishment of the inquiry. It is right that the report's findings in relation to serving civil servants be reviewed, but it is for a civil service commissioner to do that, not for politicians. That is the constitutionally correct course of action and, whatever reservations hon. Members might have about it, I urge them to think about the alternatives; I think that they will find that they are worse.
On communication, a great deal has been done within Government to make sure that Departments talk to each other and agencies talk to the Departments with which they are supposed to work, but, as I said, that issue will form part of the Government's review. The use of science is certainly a topic that the Government will review and on which they will report back to the House. It raises some difficult questions, which is another reason for not responding immediately, but thinking about it carefully.
I confirm that the hon. Gentleman's reading of Lord Phillips's findings in respect of rendering methods is correct. Although Lord Phillips's findings on the change from batch production to throughput and his analysis of changes involving the use of solvents might come as a surprise to those coming fresh to the subject. they are clear.
As for civil servants' advice to Ministers, I make it clear to my civil servants that I should greatly prefer that they told me what they actually think, rather than what they want me to hear. I do not mind people being combative and disagreeing with me; what I find difficult is people not stating what they believe to be the truth. That is the approach taken by most responsible Ministers.
On the question of the science that is available to the Government, we have made it a matter of policy to put such information in the public domain wherever possible,

389
by which I mean placing it on the MAFF website and making it available to Members of Parliament via the Library.
Mr. John Major: Like every other hon. Member, I have not yet had an opportunity to study the many volumes of the report, but, from what I have read in the past few hours, it is clear that it is an impressive and objective report. We all owe our thanks to Lord Phillips and his colleagues for the way in which they conducted their inquiry. The Government were right to set up the inquiry and the House will be right to consider its report soberly and to take appropriate action.
All of us, as we read the report, must accept our responsibility for shortcomings and the problems that arose from them. BSE and its transmission to CJD has been a dreadful and scarring experience—above all, of course, for the victims of that terrible disease and their families, who must have suffered an agony of mind and body that we can barely begin to imagine. It has also, for different and lesser reasons, been a huge problem for the beef industry, and for the officials and Ministers who sought to deal with the problem, which, as the Minister honestly made clear today, even today remains at the frontiers of our knowledge.
Will the Minister confirm that many of the people who face individual criticisms in the annexe to the report are precisely the same people who are praised elsewhere in the report for other actions and are, by definition, those—officials predominantly, but also several Ministers—who were most active in challenging BSE, and, therefore, in the position of having to take difficult decisions? I am grateful to the Minister, on behalf of those officials and Ministers, for expressing, as the report does, that no "villains or scapegoats" emerge from the report.
Does the Minister recall that, even though it was believed, and passionately believed, on advice, by those dealing with it, that there was no threat to human life, more than 30 pieces of legislation were presented to the House and passed by the House to protect against the spread of BSE? Lord Phillips's balanced report emphasises that some mistakes were made, and emphasises also, in fairness, that they were not due to indolence but, in many cases, where they occurred, were due to overwhelming pressure on a few key officials who had particular knowledge in dealing with this. That is a point that I hope will be borne in mind when those officials face any possible disciplinary action in future.
Will the Minister confirm also that it has invariably been the case that those officials and Ministers accepted the advice of the Government's advisory body as, if I may quote the Prime Minister on genetically modified foods—I strongly agree with what he said—
any responsible Government would have to do?
This is a balanced report and I hope that it will help the House to focus on the lessons to be learned. That remains important for, as we have seen in the past few days on matters related to vaccines, BSE remains an appallingly difficult problem with which to deal. It was for the previous Government and it remains, in some respects, for the present Government and the Ministers and officials who must still deal with it.
Will the Minister endeavour to ensure that the provisions of the compensation scheme, which I strongly welcome, are enacted as speedily and fairly as he
390
can arrange? Finally, I thank him for his promise that the Leader of the House will arrange a debate. Can we ensure that, within that debate, there is a proper opportunity to consider in detail the recommendations made by Lord Phillips so that the report does not gather dust but is an active and living document to ensure that such a tragedy does not occur again?
Mr. Brown: We need to learn the lessons from this. I give the right hon. Gentleman an absolute pledge that the report will not gather dust. Every single one of the recommendations that Lord Phillips makes to the Government is worthy of a response and should have a measured response, and that response should be subjected to the usual tests that we apply in this place, including robust debate, but the time for that response is not now. People want an opportunity to read the report, and I urge hon. Members to read it in its entirety rather than try to extrapolate its findings from extracts.
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his welcome for our care package. He is right to make the point that, when dealing with science, the best possible way to ensure that it is dealt with properly within government is to put the information into the public domain at the same time, and the Government now do that.
The right hon. Gentleman is also right to draw the attention of the House to the substantial amount of secondary legislation that went through this place as the Government struggled to find a proportionate response to the emerging challenges of BSE. The report clearly draws to our attention the difficulties not just in getting the legislation through and making sure that the response was proportionate, but in ensuring that it was being implemented on the ground. There were major shortcomings in that area, as Lord Phillips says.
As the right hon. Gentleman knows, I loathe scapegoating and will not tolerate it. There are individual criticisms, but as I said in my opening statement, more than half of those who are individually criticised are also praised and in one or two cases—I shall not make specific reference to individuals—substantially praised, because the action that they took was both timely and would have resulted in the saving of lives. It is necessary that the report is considered in the round and that people do not pick out the parts that suit their point of view.
Mr. Tom Clarke: It is a pleasure to be called by you personally, Mr. Speaker, albeit on a sad occasion.
Does my right hon. Friend know that my late constituent, young Donnamaria McGivern, died as a teenager after two and a half years of traumatic experience? When I spoke to her mother this morning, she was not bitter. Indeed, she welcomed what we understood to be the Government's thinking, which my right hon. Friend has confirmed, on compensation. She was thinking of others, and the need for care packages. The openness that my right hon. Friend has introduced is apparent in the culture change in the Food Standards Agency. However, in welcoming that, my constituent's mother took the view, as I do, that it is important to continue to consult and involve the families when

391
implementing the responses. I ask my right hon. Friend to take that on board, and assure him that, if he does, he will have a great deal of support.
Mr. Brown: I thank my right hon. Friend for those thoroughly decent remarks. I am sure that the House shares his concern about the care package and the compensation arrangements that are being put in place for the victims of CJD and their families.
Both elements of today's announcement—care and compensation—will be developed by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health in consultation with those who represent the families and the victims. That is the Government's firm intention.
Mr. Colin Breed: I thank the Minister for giving me an early opportunity to consider the report. It reveals a sorry saga of complacency in the early years, incompetence when risks were emerging and complicity when matters started to go wrong. It betrays a culture of Whitehall secrecy and interdepartmental failure to communicate, which, when combined with party political expediency, results in a betrayal of the public and their interests.
Our thanks and gratitude must go to Lord Phillips and his team for producing such an extensive, excellent and balanced report, although reading 4,000 pages in two hours is a little difficult. Our hearts go out to all affected by the tragedy: those who are directly affected and their families.
I accept that criticism and blame of individuals must be tempered because we are considering these matters with the benefit of hindsight. That is an exact science. Lessons must be learned, and action taken promptly. Governments must learn to trust the public. By doing that, they will engender a reciprocal trust from the public.
While I am pleased that we shall have an early opportunity to discuss the full report, one of the criticisms was about timely action. Can we be certain that the report's recommendations will provide an opportunity for genuine, prompt action in a short time scale so that the precautionary principle, the need for which has been so clearly demonstrated, will apply?
Does the Minister believe that the arrangements for the regulation and reporting of the Food Standards Agency comply with all the report's recommendations? With specific regard to the reporting structures, does the Minister believe that it would be right for the Food Standards Agency to report directly to the House rather than to a Department?
Does the Minister agree that, as a matter of urgency, we must have a robust Freedom of Information Act, which would be a vital element in restoring and retaining public confidence in the Government and all their future pronouncements?
Mr. Brown: Trust is at the heart of this matter. That is why the Government have created a culture of openness and why we put the advice to Government—including the scientific advice—into the public domain. The Food Standards Agency is intended to be an independent agency and a non-ministerial Department, but it does report to the House, through the Secretary of State for
392
Health and not through me. I think that the current structure is right. However, as I said in my statement, the chair of the FSA intends to review the Phillips report—or at least the parts that pertain to his responsibilities—at his next public meeting. One cannot be more open than that.
The hon. Gentleman refers to complacency, incompetence and complicity. As I said in my statement, I will not make the Government's response now, since Lord Phillips's recommendations—of which there are 167—deserve reflection. The report deserves to be discussed in the public domain and then the Government should respond, with our response conditioned by the views of others. However, the charge of complicity is a serious one and should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman could set out the precise points where he thinks the Phillips report justifies that very serious charge.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The House will realise that many hon. Members wish to ask a question. I ask hon. Members to be brief; it will help their colleagues.
Mrs. Alice Mahon: Like many others in the House, the tragedy of CJD touched me directly when, in 1998, a young neighbour of mine died. I congratulate the Government on the package of care and compensation, but my question is this. In 1989, the Southwood report recommended to the Cabinet that offal be banned in the use of baby food, yet I understand that no Cabinet Minister asked the question, "If offal is unfit for babies, why is it safe for adults?" If that question had been asked, might my young neighbour be alive today?
Mr. Brown: One of the great tragedies of this matter is that it is not possible to answer the second part of my hon. Friend's question. However, on the question of why precautionary measures should be put in place for baby food but not for food eaten by adults, Lord Phillips had some strong things to say. Now is not the right moment for me to respond, but my hon. Friend is on to what Lord Phillips believes to be a strong point.
Mr. Douglas Hogg: I very much welcome the report, which is manifestly an important document. There is no doubt that there are many lessons, both public and private, to be learned. I echo the words of the Minister when he says that this is a tragedy. I fully recognise what a tragedy it is for the victims and their families and I am deeply sorry for their suffering. I am deeply sorry also for many in agriculture who have suffered grave loss. In respect of the officials who advised myself and others, we believed that they gave their advice in good faith and very much to the best of their professional ability.
Speaking a little more directly about myself, does the Minister accept that I welcome the findings explicitly made at paragraphs 467 and 487 that the regime that I put in place as to the control of abattoirs in 1995 was effective in content and fully and effectively monitored? Will he confirm to the House the finding at paragraph 7.483 of volume 6 that the recommendations that I made in March 1996 as to how to address the crisis were "the right answers", were implemented by Government and—subject to natural evolution—remain the basis of Government policy today?
Mr. Brown: I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his welcome for the report, his expression

393
of sorrow and his acknowledgment—shared by everyone in the House—that this has been a national tragedy. I said that I did not want to comment on the findings of the report in respect of individuals. I can confirm that his points are right, but they are not the only findings in respect of the right hon. and learned Gentleman. I again urge every hon. Member to read the full report. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had very important responsibilities. There are findings that speak well for him but the report also contains criticisms of him. The picture needs to be taken in the round.
Mr. Mark Todd: I begin by expressing my appreciation of the quality of the statement that my right hon. Friend has made. This is a complex subject that needs to be considered with proper reflection, and I admire the way in which the Government have deliberately responded first to the issue of urgency while setting aside time in the future for the public and ordinary Members of Parliament to comment on other matters in the report. It would have been easy to rush to judgment and make partisan points, and I admire the fact that my right hon. Friend has refrained from doing that.
My right hon. Friend may want to consider two matters. The first is the adequacy of the research base supporting agriculture. Some of my right hon. Friend's remarks about the genesis of the problem may relate to the appropriateness of the research resource and its targeting in the past, and this is an opportunity to reflect on whether we now have the balance right. The second matter concerns whether we have a culture in our public service that occasionally dwells more on process and less on outcome. I suspect that one of the difficulties that the report may reveal is that decisions are made but not enough attention is given to the delivery of the outcome that is sought in those decisions.
Mr. Brown: Both of those points are well made. Lord Phillips has something to say about the implementation of Government decisions, and it is clear that a part of the tragedy was a failure, not to put a proper regime of public protection in place, but to ensure that it was implemented—the outcome on which my hon. Friend focuses. Lord Phillips sets out a range of reasons for that. I do not want to respond now, but I urge right hon. and hon. Members to consider that part of the report.
On the research base, my hon. Friend will be aware that the budget is held across Departments. There has been a substantial shift in research expenditure towards transmissible spongiform encephalopathies, and that is right, but clearly we will want to review research and priorities in this area in the light of what Lord Phillips has to say.
Mr. Michael Jack: The Minister has, understandably, sent copies of the report to the European Commission and our Community partners. Does he envisage taking any steps to ensure that a balanced and proper debate on the findings takes place among our partners and the Commission?
Mr. Brown: The report has been sent to our partners in the European Union in order to be completely open and candid with the Commission and the individual member states. In my time as a Minister, I have found that to be the best approach to adopt. I hope that the report will
394
enable others to learn the lessons that we have so painfully learned and prevent such tragedies from happening elsewhere. If it can do that, that will be an extra good thing.
Mr. Malcolm Savidge: I have a 21-year-old constituent, Donna McIntyre, who is a suspected victim of new variant CJD. Obviously, no words that I can use can adequately express that tragedy, but may I say on behalf of Donna and those who care for her that I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement? Am I correct in understanding from it that suspected sufferers from the disease will be provided with the fullest possible care and that they and their families are guaranteed compensation?
Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend is right to raise the case of his constituent. I express the sorrow of the whole House for his constituent and her friends and relatives. My hon. Friend is right in his understanding that there are two components to what we are announcing today: the enhanced care package, the exact nature of which is already the subject of discussions with those representing the interests of the patients and their carers; and the compensation element, discussions about which will proceed with those representatives next week. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health is determined to act expeditiously.
Mr. Tom King: With all the awful difficulty and tragedy associated with this matter, is it not still the case that, even after 15 years, we remain unsure about the origins of BSE? Are we to understand from the Minister's statement that the research effort is to be enhanced? If so, will he ensure that it takes into account the widest possible range of view and study, as it is urgent that we identify the cause of the disease?
Mr. Brown: That is a very important point. There is no absolute certainty about the true origin of BSE, although we know more about it than we did in the mid-1980s, let alone the 1970s. The findings in Lord Phillips's report make very interesting reading. That is why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and I have asked for a comprehensive review of everything that is known at present. That review will also include emerging science, so that we will have an understanding of the current state of knowledge and of what remains to be discovered, as we still do not know the whole story.
Mr. Alan W. Williams: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the main lessons to be learned from this chapter is the importance of the precautionary principle? There was always a danger that BSE was transmissible to humans, but, for more than a decade, we lived with the myth that somehow we would be immune to it. That myth persisted even after it was shown that the disease could be transmitted to laboratory animals and cats.
In opposition, when my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) and I, among others, raised such questions, we were accused of scaremongering. It has turned out that there will be dozens, or even hundreds, of human casualties. Will my right hon. Friend reassure

395
me that the precautionary principle will remain paramount in the work done by him and this Government on food safety?
Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend is right in what he says about the precautionary principle. He is also correct in saying that Lord Phillips's report has a substantial amount to tell us about the emerging view in the scientific community that BSE can jump the species barrier. Steps on the journey towards that understanding include the findings of the Southwood report, and laboratory experimentation with a pig. That experimentation showed that a pig could acquire the condition when the disease was injected into its brain. There was also the discovery that a feline spongiform encephalopathy existed, which showed that the species barrier had been jumped and that the condition—or something very like it—was prevalent in cats.
The scientific view started to change, and Phillips has something to say about how quickly that changing scientific view was transmitted and acted on within government. However, I do not want to respond on that matter now: hon. Members really should read the report in its entirety.
Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Whatever the motives of those who withheld from the public information about the risks associated with BSE, does the Minister accept that the consequences of that action were absolutely devastating to all the interests that they may have thought they were protecting? My constituency was completely devastated by the introduction of the scheme to cull cows and the collapse of the beef market.
First, given the long incubation period of new variant CJD, what measures will be taken to step up research to find ways to prevent, treat and cure the disease? Successful research in that direction would mean that we would be able to deal with a significant rise in the numbers of people affected by it.
Secondly, will the Minister accept the strictures of my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cornwall (Mr. Breed), that the history of the disease justifies a much more open freedom of information regime?
Thirdly, the Government have put in place measures to protect people in this country from BSE, but there has been a rise in the incidence of CJD in France. How will the Minister ensure that there is no danger of the disease reaching us by way of imported products?
Mr. Brown: The setting up of the Food Standards Agency is a key public protection measure. Responsibility for food safety is not now a matter for me, as a Minister, or for my Ministry. That is the whole point of setting up an independent agency. The hon. Gentleman should look to Sir John Krebs for statements about the safety of food products from France or elsewhere.
As for candour, I endeavour to put scientific advice to Ministers—and, indeed, other advice—in the public domain. On a number of occasions, I have also placed such advice in the Library, so that, on controversial topics, all Members of the House can see what advice has been given.
396
Lord Phillips clearly identifies a failure to communicate. The Government have done a great deal to address that concern, from the election onwards. We want to trust the public; we want to be candid. The advisory committees, whose lay representation includes consumers, put their advice into the public domain. In addition, of course, the Food Standards Agency meets in public and puts its advice to Ministers into the public domain at the same time. Those are some of the measures that the Government have already taken to address some of the points that have arisen in the process of the Phillips inquiry.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned motives. I know that I have said this before, but I urge him to read the report in its entirety before rushing to judgment. I accept that he has not seen it, but he really should read it. It deserves a period of mature consideration before we make subjective value judgments.
Judy Mallaber: One of the first constituents to visit my surgery after my election was Shirley Warne, who was desperate to find out why her son Chris was lying in hospital dying from this dreadful disease. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, if we do not learn fully all the lessons about openness and getting rid of any culture of secrecy, it will be a betrayal of the families who have suffered so much?
I welcome the fact that families will not have to struggle through the courts to get the compensation that they need and the package of care that is required. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that that package will be sufficiently generous to meet those needs and fully to help those people who are struggling to care for their loved ones at home?
Mr. Brown: I thank my hon. Friend for her welcome for the care package and the compensation package. It has not been finally decided whether the trust structure is the right vehicle for delivering these measures. That will be the subject of discussions between my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and those representing the families' interests. However, I am grateful that my hon. Friend welcomes this as an important new announcement and a step forward for the families concerned.
My hon. Friend spoke about secrecy. It is clearly right—certainly with the advantage of hindsight—to trust the public, put the advice available to the Government into the public domain and encourage a responsible debate around scientific advice. The previous Government did not wish to cause alarm, and were therefore not open about these matters because they feared causing a panic. They believed that the countervailing arguments were stronger. Lord Phillips's finding is very clear on this, as I said in my statement: he says that it was a mistake. He does not say that it was necessarily unreasonable at the time, which is why I urge people to read the report in its entirety.
Mr. Alan Duncan: Until the last election's boundary changes, the village of Queniborough was in my constituency. A cluster of CJD cases has been found there, as yet unexplained. Two years ago, I tabled a series of parliamentary questions seeking information about the risk of passing on the disease through the re-use of medical instruments which, it seems, cannot be adequately sterilised by conventional methods. What does

397
the report conclude about that risk? Given that it was known about some time ago, what have the Government done so far and, given what I suspect is a continuing urgency, what will they do further to eliminate the risk?
Mr. Brown: As I say, I do not want to give the Government's response now. Lord Phillips's report is comprehensive and he deals in a measured and thorough way with the routes of transmission. He looks at cosmetics, medical instruments and vaccines. It is a pretty thorough survey of all the possible routes of transmission and I urge the hon. Gentleman to look at those passages in the report if he can do no more. He is right about the cluster, which is still unexplained. It is unlikely that it was merely a statistical fluke, but no cause has yet been identified, although as he will know as a result of representing the area, a substantial amount of work is going on.
Dr. Gavin Strang: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there will be widespread support for his announcement that all the individuals and families who have suffered as a result of new variant CJD will receive compensation? In view of the lengthy incubation period of the disease in humans, I am sure that we are right not to predict the likely total number of cases. Does he agree that, with 85 people known to have contracted the disease, 18 of whom have done so this year, a significant epidemic is still a possibility and that we need to be prepared for that?
Of course, we will need to read the report thoroughly. Can my right hon. Friend comment on the suggestion that the inadequacy of the research done during the 1980s may have resulted in the disaster being greater than it need have been? Some of the reasons for that may have been a lack of transparency, massive cuts in the number of Government scientists working in the area throughout the 1980s and, against that background, an insistence by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food that the research be carried out in its establishments rather than in the public sector establishments best fitted to do the work.
Mr. Brown: In preparing for this debate, I re-read what my right hon. Friend said in 1996 when he was Opposition spokesman on agriculture—it reads very well in the light of what happened. My right hon. Friend certainly represented his party well. On the incubation period, he is right that, we do not know even the average incubation period of the prion protein agent in humans, so one cannot extrapolate from the statistical trends the eventual epidemic. I look forward to the day when the number of victims year on year will go steadily down, as I am sure everyone does, because that will tell us that we are through this. Until we get there, it is rash to predict.
On research, there has now been a substantial shift in expenditure towards research into transmissible spongiform encephalopathies. Lord Phillips has something to say about which research institutions were used and whether a single director should have been appointed to oversee all BSE-CJD research. I do not want to paraphrase Lord Phillips because the finding is detailed, but I commend it to my right hon. Friend.
As for shortcomings, Lord Phillips has a lot to say on the implementation of the controls. Even where the scientific advice to Ministers—advice from professional civil servants—was timely and right, its translation into effective action is much criticised in the report.
Mr. William Thompson: I welcome the Minister's statement. From what we have heard, the report is excellent as well as being fair and balanced. The BSE saga teaches us a salutary lesson. Despite the extent of our knowledge, we can suddenly be hit by a new disease that plays havoc with society, and that should humble us all. I welcome the enhanced care package because I know how tragic it is to see a young person cut down. These patients' parents have to watch them for a long time dying. That package is useful. On compensation, does this mean that the Government are reasonably sure that there will not be a large number of cases? Have we reached that stage yet?
Mr. Brown: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his characteristically humane remarks about the victims of CJD and those who have to watch members of their family—usually the younger members—suffering in the most appalling circumstances. His views are echoed all around the House.
I welcome the hon. Gentleman's remarks about the package, which has two components: an enhanced care element and a compensation element. He is right to say that the Government have taken the difficult decision to put those arrangements in place regardless of the eventual outcome of the number of people who need to be cared for. They are our fellow citizens, and we shall have to care for them anyway—every Member would want to do so.
Mr. David DrewIt is impossible to underestimate the tragedy for all the victims and their families, but a separate tragedy has affected the livestock industry. It is estimated that the Government have so far spent about £4 billion on anti-BSE measures, but that does not take account of the impact on the different communities in agricultural areas. Can my right hon. Friend assure me that the Government will continue to spend whatever it takes to eradicate BSE and to ensure that we learn from the mistakes that were made in the past so that we rebuild our livestock industry?
Mr. Brown: Just after the period covered by the Phillips report, and in response to the climate of opinion at the time, the Government introduced the over-30-months scheme, which is by far the most expensive part of our public protection measures and provides a floor in the market—indeed, the only market—for older animals. It is a market intervention measure, but its purpose is not market intervention; it exists to protect the public. It does so powerfully, and it will stay so long as it is needed to carry out that function. Who takes the decision on that? It is now a matter for the Food Standards Agency, which is leading a review of the measures now in place to protect the public from variant CJD. Everything that is recommended will be in the public domain so that we can all see what is recommended and why.
Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: An eminent scientist who is a constituent of mine is within a shade of initiating a diagnostic test for BSE. He is being hampered in his research by the fact that the Ministry will not allow access to infected cattle. Earlier this week, I tabled several parliamentary questions on that subject. May I ask the Minister please to consider them personally and reverse the Ministry's stance, which is hampering that vital research?
Mr. Brown: There are a number of theories and, from them, attempts to discover diagnostic tests for BSE and

399
variant CJD. It would be overwhelmingly beneficial if a diagnostic test could be found that worked on cattle and went back before the onset of the clinical signs. Such work is being undertaken, but access to the necessary research material must be limited; there is only a limited amount of it and it is mostly held by the Government. How that vital research tool is to be used is very much a matter on which I would want to be professionally advised.
I promise to have the hon. Gentleman's constituency point looked at, but I cannot promise to intervene as the political head of a Department and alter the decisions, which are based on scientific judgment rather than political decision making.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Unfortunately, we now have to move on to the business statement.

Business of the House
1.34 pm
The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 30 OCTOBER—Remaining stages of the Race Relations (Amendment) Bill [Lords].
TUESDAY 31 OCTOBER—Remaining stages of the Children (Leaving Care) Bill [Lords].
WEDNESDAY 1 NOVEMBER—Debate on Defence and the Armed Forces on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
THURSDAY 2 NOVEMBER—Continuation of debate on Defence and the Armed Forces on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
FRIDAY 3 NOVEMBER—The House will not be sitting.
The provisional business for the following week will include:
MONDAY 6 NOVEMBER—Opposition Day [19th Allotted Day]. There will be a debate on a motion in the name of the Liberal Democrats. Subject to be announced.
The House will also wish to know that on Wednesday 1 November there will be a debate on European Document No:9964/00: Social Policy Agenda, in European Standing Committee C. Details of the relevant documents will be given in the Official Report.
[Wednesday 1 November 2000:
European Standing Committee C—Relevant European Union Document: 9964/00, Social Policy Agenda; Relevant European Scrutiny Committee Report: HC 23-xxvi (1999-2000).]
The House may also wish to know that the new Session will be opened on Wednesday 6 December.
Mrs. Angela Browning: I thank the Leader of the House for giving us the business for next week. Before asking for details, I pay tribute to my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young), who discharged his duties as shadow Leader of the House with grace and charm. He had a constructive working relationship with the Government, which helped to enhance the way in which the House is run.
The right hon. Lady kindly gave us a date for the Queen's Speech, but will she tell us when it was last held in December? She will be aware that its lateness is a reflection of the backlog from this Session. Many of us are concerned about the way in which the House's business is being discharged during the final weeks of this Session.
Does the Leader of the House plan to have a debate on the economy after the autumn statement? Hon. Members want the matter to be fully debated.
In next week's business, the Leader of the House announced a two-day debate on defence. Will she confirm that that still leaves one further Adjournment debate on defence for this Session? She will know that it is customary to have three defence debates on motions for the Adjournment of the House.
Will the right hon. Lady tell us whether the House will have an opportunity to reconsider the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill, which is currently in

401
another place? That is particularly significant, because more than 125 pages of amendments have been added to it since it arrived there. The Bill that will return to the Commons is likely to be very different from that which left us, and hon. Members have not had an opportunity to scrutinise or comment on the revised Bill. Does the right hon. Lady agree with the Home Office Minister in another place, Lord Bassam, who said that the Bill was cumbersome and bureaucratic? It certainly is since another 125 pages were added to it.
Will the Leader of the House advise us whether there will be statements in the near future on the situation of Israel and Palestine, particularly as it arose during the recess and we have not yet heard from the Foreign Secretary? Will she also tell us whether a statement on the EU summit in Biarritz is anticipated? She will be aware that the previous three informal summits were the subject of statements in the House and were acclaimed as great victories by the Government. We hope that they will shortly have something positive to report on the Biarritz summit.
Finally, the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz), yesterday told the "Today" programme, in a debate with Trevor Kavanagh of The Sun, that the Prime Minister wanted to have a debate on the euro. Yesterday the Prime Minister put great emphasis on the Government's five economic tests, but we know from evidence given by Treasury Ministers to the Select Committee on the Treasury before the summer recess that the Government are not measuring progress on those five tests, and do not intend to produce any written evidence about how close we are to, or how far we are from, meeting those tests. In a spirit of co-operation, I urge the right hon. Lady to allow a debate on the Floor of the House about the single currency. We all want to join the Prime Minister in a debate on the euro.
Mrs. Beckett: I welcome the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) to her new responsibilities and join her in paying tribute to her predecessor, who was indeed an excellent shadow Leader of the House and discharged his duties with elegance and wit.
The hon. Lady asked when the Queen's Speech was last held in December. From memory I am not sure, but it has not happened for many years, probably not since the second world war. [Laughter.] Hon. Members have been attending these sessions for a long time, and I advise them not to laugh too soon. The hon. Lady asked whether the lateness was a reflection of the backlog. It certainly reflects the remarks of Lord Strathclyde, the leader of the Tory party in the other place, who recently said that the Lords would wish to take a full amount of time—all the time they wanted—to debate Bills, and added:
And if that means that the Queen has to come to Parliament a little bit later than she normally does then I think that's a price worth paying.
Clearly that was the intention, and that has been the effect of the decisions taken in the Lords, where the Government do not control the timetable or the agenda.
As for the time being taken, the hon. Lady will recall that we have made two late additions to the Government's programme. One is the Football (Disorder) Bill, on which the Tory party called for legislation—and offered
402
co-operation, although most of us would not think that that had been forthcoming. The other addition covers the Northern Ireland Bills resulting from the peace process. I do not know whether that is the cause of the lateness, but in two of the Sessions equivalent to this one in the previous three Parliaments under the Tory Government, both the Commons and the Lords sat for more days, and, indeed, passed more Bills, than we will have done this Session. We hope that a maximum of 42 Bills will be completed this Session, whereas during the equivalent Session in the 1981-82 Parliament there were 46 Bills, and during the 1985-86 Session there were 49 Bills. There is nothing unprecedented about the size of the Government's programme. It is simply that Members have wished to consider it adequately, and it has taken the Lords rather longer than it usually does to consider that number of Bills.
The hon. Lady asked for a debate on the economy. Obviously, we will consider that through the usual channels after the pre-Budget statement. I think that the Lady is mistaken in thinking that there is a defence day outstanding, but I will check that. She also asked about the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill, which has indeed been substantially redrafted. That, as she will know, followed representations from many who studied the Bill, not least Tory Members.
I will draw the hon. Lady's remarks about a statement on the middle east to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary. She will know that oral questions to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office will be taken on 7 November, and I expect that there will be a statement following the Biarritz summit. As for a debate on the euro and the five tests, it has occurred to me once or twice lately that if there is one absolutely outstanding reason for Britain to join the euro, it is so that we can get away from this perpetual nit-picking about whether what some Minister has said is different from what was said a week before.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I appeal for brief questions. This will assist every hon. Member present.
Mr. Robert Sheldon: When will there be a debate on the Liaison Committee's report, on which it is said there will be a free vote? Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the debate will take place on a substantive motion?
Mrs. Beckett: I cannot tell my right hon. Friend now when there will be a debate on the Liaison Committee report. To quote a previous leader of our party, "not next week". There will be a debate, and as my right hon. Friend knows, whenever there is a vote on such matters, it is a free vote—at least on this side. It is possible that Tory Members have been committed by their leader as to how they will vote.
Mr. Paul Tyler: I endorse what has been said about the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young). We will miss him, not least his constructive attitude in the Select Committee on the Modernisation of the House of Commons.
Was the right hon. Lady surprised that the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) did not include in her requests an urgent debate on some important issues

403
arising from the statement that we have just had from the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food? Perhaps, with her usual modesty, the hon. Lady felt that as a former Agriculture Minister she might feature too strongly in such a debate.
Will the Leader of the House consider now some issues that cannot wait for the Government to investigate fully in all Departments all the implications of an extremely comprehensive report? I am particularly concerned about matters relating to secrecy, accountability and trust. The right hon. Lady will have noted the comment of Lord Phillips and his team that Ministers sought to sedate the public. Even the summary of the report stated that
The Government was preoccupied with preventing an alarmist over-reaction to BSE because it believed that the risk was remote. It is now clear that this campaign of reassurance was a mistake.
Does the Leader of the House recognise that the issue does not merely affect the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food or the Department of Health, but goes right across government? It is, of course, especially relevant to Parliament's current consideration of freedom of information legislation. We need a statement from the Government on whether they recognise the important implications of the Phillips report for that legislation.
Mrs. Beckett: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his remarks about the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire, the predecessor of the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton as shadow Leader of the House.
I am sure that the whole House accepts that the report on which my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has just made a statement will have substantial implications across government. Of course I will convey to my right hon. Friend the tenor of the remarks made by the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) about an early discussion of various aspects of the report. I simply point out to him that as the report includes 16 volumes and contains 167 recommendations, it is more likely than not that, although people may pick some of the issues that it raises for individual debates, a more substantive debate can be held only at some little time in the future. From conversations that I have held with my right hon. Friend, I am aware that he is adamant—as he was at the Dispatch Box today—that it is essential to look at the report in the round, and that he wants the House and the public to do that.
The hon. Member for North Cornwall makes important points about the implications for freedom of information legislation. The Government believe that the regime that we are establishing is a substantial improvement on the previous one—but the hon. Gentleman will be aware that there are other opportunities to discuss those matters.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: May I also emphasise the need for an early debate on the BSE crisis? My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food made a statement, but he is a very kind man, and it all boils down to the fact that for the best part of 18 years, a Tory Government and their Ministers were more concerned about saving their own skins than about the victims of CJD. The brutality was re-emphasised by the fact that they did not even have the decency to set up a compensation fund for the victims of CJD. That had to be
404
done by the Labour Government. If the Ministers who were guilty had been in local government, they would have been surcharged and kicked out of office.
Mrs. Beckett: There will in due course be a debate on these matters, and my hon. Friend and those who share his view will have the opportunity to make their points. He is right to highlight the fact that—for whatever reason—the previous Government took the decision that there should not be a compensation scheme. I was pleased to hear Members on both sides of the House welcome the fact that the Labour Government have chosen to reverse that decision.
Mr. Christopher Gill: Right hon. and hon. Members will be aware that over the past six months the value of the pound has depreciated by 13.5 per cent. against the United States dollar. They might realise that, in order to join the euro, it would be necessary to devalue our currency by a further 20 per cent. against the US dollar. May we have an early debate, in which we could discuss the Government's policy on the effect of massive devaluations of our currency against the US dollar, both on price stability in this country and on the economic prospects for the whole United Kingdom?
Mrs. Beckett: There are many opportunities to raise such issues. I remind the hon. Gentleman, with great respect, that Conservative Members often express concern about the value of the pound and complain about the damage being caused by its high level, especially to manufacturing industry. If we held such a debate, we might explore the contradictions in the attitudes of Conservative Members. One day they call for devaluation, yet another day they are—apparently—calling for an increase in the exchange rate.
Mr. Desmond Browne: Thank you for calling me, Mr. Speaker. As I have not had an opportunity to do so before, may I add my congratulations to those that you have already received on your election?
My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will be aware of the intense pride that many in the House take in the fact that our Government played such an important part in securing international support for the Rome statute on the International Criminal Court in 1998. Has my right hon. Friend had an opportunity to consider the terms of the consultation document and draft Bill that were published in August? As the draft Bill was published in August and the consultation period expired during the recess, will my right hon. Friend find us an early opportunity to discuss that important document in this place?
The ratification of the statute will make a significant contribution to human rights throughout the world. An informed and intense debate on the legislation is going on outside the House and I am sure that my right hon. Friend agrees that it is important that the House has an opportunity to contribute to it.
Mrs. Beckett: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, but despite the careful and, if I may say so, elegant way in which he put his request, I suspect that he is inviting me to speculate on the contents of the Queen's Speech. He will know that I do not do that.
Sir Teddy Taylor: Could we not at least have a debate on the implications

405
of the continuing collapse of the euro, which is a time bomb for the rest of Europe? Also, could the Leader of the House arrange for a statement to be made next week to give guidance to Members of Parliament on whether it is right and proper to place bets on the result before registering their votes on important issues?
Mrs. Beckett: First, as I said in response to an earlier question, there are many such opportunities. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman will know that Treasury questions are being tabled today, which provides opportunities to raise issues about the euro. As for the hon. Gentleman's final remark, I am pleased to say that that is not a matter for me.
Dr. George Turner: In recent correspondence with me, the planning inspectorate admitted that one of its inspectors misdirected himself in ruling on an appeal from my constituents, the Dale family, in relation to building a bungalow. However, the only redress that the inspectorate is offering my constituents is judicial review, the cost of which is beyond the reasonable means of any person or family. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we need to look at the state of our planning laws? Will she ensure that the House has an opportunity to discuss those laws in an Adjournment debate before the Queen's Speech?
Mrs. Beckett: The whole House will understand and sympathise with the position in which my hon. Friend's constituents find themselves. Indeed, I accept completely my hon. Friend's point about judicial review being the only channel open to them. A review of planning legislation is currently being undertaken, and my hon. Friend may well wish to draw the attention of Ministers in the Department of the Environment. Transport and the Regions to the issue that he has raised. I shall certainly draw his remarks to their attention. As for the request for a debate, however, I fear that all that I can offer my hon. Friend is Environment questions next week.
Mr. Archy Kirkwood: Will the Leader of the House find time to make an early statement on the reference to the Review Body on Senior Salaries of costs allowances and related matters which was recently announced in a written answer in the other place? Am I right that the Government's decision to make the reference merely implements a decision taken by the previous Government? If the right hon. Lady does not have time to make a statement, will she make it clear how hon. Members can best make representations and submissions? What is the time scale for the report and what is the scope of the current review?
Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Gentleman is entirely right, and it is partly for that reason that a formal statement has not been made. The previous Government accepted the SSRB's recommendation that, instead of a one-off apocalyptic review from time to time, there should be a regular review and updating every two or three years. That is the source of the review that is now under way.
I hope that Members will contribute to that review. I believe that we have asked the SSRB for a letter to be sent to Members drawing their attention to the scope of its inquiries and inviting them to submit evidence, should they wish to do so. If there has been a hiccup, I undertake to look into the matter and ensure that that is done.
Angela Smith: Is my right hon. Friend aware of a campaign in connection with the attempts by

406
pirate salvagers to raise HMS Prince of Wales and HMS Repulse, two warships sunk during the war with great loss of life? The attempts to raise the ships have caused great distress to many people, and many Members of Parliament have been contacted by their local royal naval associations. I have been working with the Basildon branch, where people are very distressed about the matter. The British Government have made it clear that they regard the ships as war graves, and they should be treated as such. However, it is becoming increasingly clear that some international regulations or laws are needed to protect such war graves properly. May we have an urgent debate on the matter, and on the need to make representations to international bodies and other countries about it?
Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend makes an important point. I know that she is one of those who has campaigned with her local royal naval association. As was evident from the reaction across the House to her remarks, the whole House shares her view that those vessels are important war graves, and not something to be plundered. I undertake to draw her remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary. I cannot promise my hon. Friend an early debate, but I can make sure that her request for international action is conveyed to the proper quarters.
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Will the Leader of the House try to arrange for the Home Secretary to come to the Chamber next week to make a statement on the Criminal Cases Review Commission? Is she aware that there is growing concern about the delay in the commission's deliberations on the case of Stephen Downing? She will no doubt have seen much publicity about the case during the summer months. Stephen Downing has now been in prison for a considerable time, and his case has been with the CCRC since its inception.
Mrs. Beckett: I will certainly undertake to draw the hon. Gentleman's remarks and the concern that lies behind them to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. I cannot undertake to suggest that there will be a statement on the matter in the near future, but obviously when my right hon. Friend has had a chance to consider his remarks, he will take them into account.
Mr. Harry Barnes: My right hon. Friend will be aware that next Wednesday in Westminster Hall I have a debate on Saint-Gobain's takeover and threatened closure of Biwater at Clay Cross, which would mean the loss of 700 jobs. Early-day motion 1084 also refers to the matter.
[That this House finds it to be totally unacceptable that the French-based multi-national company Saint-Gobain should have acquired the shares of Biwater (Clay Cross) Ltd for the immediate purpose of closing the plant; is deeply concerned that this will lead to the loss of 700 jobs and the devastation of the local community; is aware that Saint-Gobain's objectives in moving to close the plant are (a) to destroy the pipe manufacturing capacity of a key rival, especially in international markets, (b) to capture Biwater's extensive and growing order book, essentially for transfer to overseas companies and (c) to transfer and asset strip the plant's machinery; and calls upon the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to prevent the

407
closure by making full and effective use of powers available to him under the Fair Trading Act 1973, which includes the possibility of setting up an immediate inquiry into the take-over by the Competition Commission and halting all moves to close the plant while the Commission undertakes an in-depth investigation which it is believed will lead to the saving of the plant and the condemnation of Saint-Gobain's actions.]
My right hon. Friend may not be aware that a mass petition from my constituents was handed in today at No. 10 Downing street in connection with the matter. May we have a wider debate? It has transpired that the Secretary of State has been misled by the Office of Fair Trading, which did not inform him that when it was producing a report, it knew that the closure plans existed. The role of the OFT, the Secretary of State's position in relation to the Fair Trading Act 1973, and whether matters should go to the Competition Commission could be discussed—a debate that is probably relevant to many other cases. If my right hon. Friend cannot manage to provide such a debate, will she at least ensure that the Prime Minister responds to the petition given to him at Downing street today?
Mrs. Beckett: I am very conscious of the campaign that my hon. Friend and other colleagues have conducted on the matter, and I saw the demonstrators at Downing street this morning. My hon. Friend rightly says that he has already secured a debate on the issue in Westminster Hall. He will have the opportunity to raise those points then. I will certainly draw his remarks about the petition to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, but I cannot undertake to find time for a further debate. In the debate that he has secured, my hon. Friend will have the opportunity to make his points to Ministers from the Department of Trade and Industry, and I shall make sure that they are given notice of the concerns that he intends to raise.
Mr. Stephen Day: In view of the Prime Minister's admission yesterday that Britain's joining the euro would have constitutional implications, will time be made available for Ministers to come to the House and announce whether they will publish a White Paper on the subject? In view of the Treasury's admission to the Select Committee, it is clear that the Government's five economic tests are no basis whatever for a judgment on whether Britain should join. The Prime Minister desperately is seeking to avoid the critical area in which there is a decision to be taken in principle—the matter of the constitution—despite being forced to admit yesterday that there were implications.
Mrs. Beckett: The House will recall from the words that the Prime Minister used, not just yesterday—he has used them on many occasions—that there is no secret. There is no admission to be made. It is clear that there are constitutional implications in joining the euro; the Government have never resiled from that. Nevertheless, we have always said that we do not believe that—when the economic case is made—those implications outweigh the potential advantages. I see no need for another White Paper to say what everyone already knows and is discussing at length all the time.
Mr. Andrew Miller: In 1998, the now retired chief scientific officer put into the
408
public domain our policy for dealing with cross-departmental scientific policy issues. In the light of the obvious reference to that matter in the earlier statement on BSE, and because the subject covers a much broader consideration of science and hazard assessment, will my right hon. Friend consider holding a separate debate in the near future on the whole issue of cross-departmental policy development on hazard assessment, and the improvement of public understanding of that? That will allow us to ensure that in future, the public are given confidence that matters such as the BSE tragedy will be dealt with more transparently?
Mrs. Beckett: I cannot undertake to find time for such a debate in the near future. However, my hon. Friend raises a valid issue that deserves serious consideration. I understand that one outcome of the Westminster Hall experiment is that many hon. Members find it a suitable venue for such serious and thoughtful debates, and I believe and hope that someone will take the opportunity to raise this matter there.
Mr. Patrick Nicholls: Does the right hon. Lady agree that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland was wrong to say that pensioners should be rebranded because to be old was not cool? Perhaps at the same time she could also reject the remarks of her hon. Friend, one of the Ealing Members, who said that we should not worry about pensioners because they are all Conservative and racist? Does she agree that there is a good opportunity to have a debate next week on the proposition that we should establish a ministry for the third age, so that all the issues relating to the care of older people, such as their employment prospects, health care and pension plans, are considered in their entirety? If not next week, does she not agree that such a debate should be held in the near future?
Mrs. Beckett: I am not aware of the words that the hon. Gentleman attributed to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. They do not sound like my right hon. Friend's words. I am well aware that the words he attributed to my hon. Friend the Ealing Member—we all know who he means—are not accurate. My hon. Friend did not say them, as he has repeatedly made clear, and is distressed by the imputation. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not wish to lay those words unfairly at my hon. Friend's door.
There are many issues to discuss concerning policy for the elderly, not least—many Labour Members would like to hear this discussed—the implications of the Conservative party's new pension policy to abolish the extra money provided by the Labour Government and to make the sums involved taxable, thereby almost certainly making a large number of pensioners worse off. Although I understand the attractions of such a debate, I fear that it will not happen next week.
Mr. Huw Edwards: May we have a debate on early-day motion 1069, which was tabled in response to the report of the Competition Commission on supermarket practices?
[That this House notes the findings of the recent Competition Commission inquiry that some major supermarkets 'distorted competition in the supply of groceries' with the effect of helping to kill off competition

409
from smaller shops; welcomes the conclusion that this 'operates against the public interest', but deplores the perverse decision that no action should be taken in this regard; and therefore calls upon the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to ask the Director General of Fair Trading to advise on steps to be taken to protect the owners of small businesses from unfair competition aimed at destroying their livelihoods.]
There is considerable concern among the farming community in my constituency about some supermarket practices, which the report identified as against the public interest. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House would welcome such a debate.
Mrs. Beckett: Again, I understand the pressure for such a debate, which I am sure would be interesting. However, Westminster Hall would also be a suitable venue for it. Sadly, it would not be easy to find time to discuss such issues on the Floor of the House.
Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: Over the past few weeks, several thousand jobs have been shed in south Wales by Japanese high-tech companies. There is a continuing and deepening crisis. Has the Secretary of State for Wales suggested that he intends to come to the Dispatch Box to make a statement on that important matter? If not, will the right hon. Lady make time available to debate the deepening crisis?
Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Gentleman is right to identify the concerns that I know there are in Wales following some of the announcements that have been made. I know that that is a matter of anxiety to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales. The hon. Gentleman will know of all the pressure on time in the House, but although I cannot promise him a debate, I certainly undertake to draw his remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend.
Mr. Keith Darvill: Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on the future of the Ford plant in Dagenham, flowing from the decision by the Ford motor company to end car assembly there? Despite a recent decision to improve investment in diesel engines at the plant, there is still widespread concern in the community at large about the area's future. It would be appropriate to debate other issues concerning the Thames gateway at the same time.
Mrs. Beckett: I understand the concerns in Dagenham. I recognise that, as my hon. Friend has said, those concerns have not all been eased by the announcement of further investment by Ford, very welcome though that is. Although that it is one of the worthy subjects to be debated, I fear that I cannot find time for a debate in the near future. However, my hon. Friend will know that there are Trade and Industry questions next week.
Mr. John Bercow: Given that the Prime Minister failed again yesterday to say what he thinks are the constitutional issues surrounding the euro, why does not the right hon. Lady arrange for an early debate in Government time on the subject of the single European currency, which the Prime Minister could open,
410
explaining once and for all to the House whether he shares the verdict of the former Spanish Prime Minister, Felipe Gonzalez, who supports the euro but says that entry represents the greatest abandonment of sovereignty since the foundation of the European Community?
Mrs. Beckett: I should first remind the hon. Gentleman that, if the Conservative party thinks that the matter should be very urgently debated, it could have debated it during yesterday's Opposition day, during which it chose to debate two other subjects. He says that there are important constitutional issues; that is undoubtedly true. It is also true that the Government are promising the British people a referendum on any decision. That is the time at which all those constitutional issues can and no doubt will be aired.
I say again to the hon. Gentleman, who I am sure is very conscious of the fact, that there are two totally different positions that make sense. One is to say that the constitutional position is so grave that we should never join, and the other is to join if it is in Britain's interests to do so. It makes no sense to say, "Not for five years," which is his party's policy.
Mr. John Cryer: Thank you for calling me, Mr. Speaker, and congratulations.
May I ask my right hon. Friend for a debate on the national plan for the national health service, which was released some weeks ago? Generally, the plan is very welcome, but the proposal to abolish community health councils has caused much concern. I have received representations from my CHC in Havering on the issue, and it would seem that there has been little or no consultation of the councils themselves. There is a fear that the powers of CHCs will be dissipated over such a wide area that they will become pretty ineffective. Could we have a debate?
Mrs. Beckett: I am aware of the concerns felt and the fact that people wish to discuss the proposals on community health councils. I believe that I am right in saying that the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart), is conducting consultations, and she would no doubt welcome views. I fear that I cannot promise an early debate on the matter, but such is the importance of the national plan that I am confident that there will be occasions on which it will be debated in the House.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. We must move to the main business of the day.
Mr. Owen Paterson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it a convention of the House that those who have attended a statement throughout and have stood each time since it was made may be allowed to pose a question?
Mr. Speaker: No. It is entirely at my discretion who is called.

Defence Procurement
[Relevant documents: First Report from the Defence Committee, Session 1999–2000, on the OCCAR Convention, HC 69, and the Government's response thereto, HC 224; Sixth Report from the Defence Committee, Session 1999–2000, on the Appointment of the New Chief Scientific Adviser, HC 318, and the Government's response thereto, HC 731; Ninth Report from the Defence Committee, Session 1999–2000, on the Future of DERA, HC 462, and the Government's response thereto, HC 901; and Tenth Report from the Defence Committee, Session 1999–2000, on Major Procurement Projects, HC 528, and the Government's Response thereto, HC 902.]
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Pope.]
Mr. Speaker: I should inform the House that there is a 15-minute limit on speeches from Back Benchers.
2.9 pm
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): I shall outline the Government's achievements in procurement and in modernising our nation's defences, highlight the fundamental choices that Britain faces on defence, and set out the way forward for our equipment programme.
The strategic defence review, in which the Government set out our defence objectives and a clear view of how those would be achieved, identified the need for improvements and for a number of new vessels.
The Government set out new plans, which we are a long way down the path to achieving. We have put in place the development work for our two new aircraft carriers; we have placed contracts for the design work for the first of our new class of type 45 destroyers; and work is under way on building two new survey vessels.
Today, I shall announce the way forward in relation to two further competitions—first, on our strategic lift requirement, and secondly, on the competition to replace our current fleet of amphibious landing ships, known as the new alternative landing ships logistics, or ALSLs.
Dr. Julian Lewis rose—
Mr. Hoon: Taken together, these developments represent good news for our Navy and marines, good news for our shipyards, and very good news indeed for Britain. This is Labour in government ensuring that Britain's defences are ranked with the best in the world. I hope that the House will therefore understand why I prefer to announce the way forward on both these competitions, before taking interventions, which I should be delighted to take thereafter.
In identifying the need for improvements to our strategic lift, the strategic defence review recognised that in the post-cold war world, we need to be able to move our forces quickly to trouble spots overseas, and to sustain them properly when they are there.
I was therefore pleased be able to announce earlier this year planned enhancements to our strategic airlift, with the lease from next year of four C-17s and the acquisition towards the end of the decade of 25 of the new airbus
412
A400M transport aircraft, subject to the conditions that I laid out then. Overall, that represents an investment of some £3.5 billion.
The joint rapid reaction forces need sealift to move their heavy equipment, such as main battle tanks and heavy engineering equipment. We have in the past relied on the commercial charter market to provide the majority of the ships that we needed, but the Gulf war showed the potential difficulty of securing sufficient suitable vessels in periods of crisis, particularly when our allies are in precisely the same market. The strategic defence review therefore established that we should secure six roll on/roll off ferries to assure a sufficient level of strategic sealift. The Kosovo crisis reinforced that requirement.
As the House is aware, ro-ros are non-warlike vessels. They will be standard commercial ships, to be used for transporting equipment. They are not expected to enter combat areas. They are not, therefore, by any conceivable definition, warlike.
Most significantly, we will not need six ships at all times—only during major exercises, or in times of crisis when we are deploying the joint rapid reaction force. Under the proposed private finance initiative contract, when the ships are not being used by the Ministry of Defence, they will be used for commercial trade by their owners. As a result, the private sector bears part of the financial risk, the cost to the taxpayer is kept to a minimum, and expensive pieces of equipment are used efficiently. Had we sought to build, own and operate those ships ourselves, we would in effect have had to pay a premium for two ships that we did not always need.
In passing, I remind hon. Members on both sides of the House that we were not alone in opting for the PFI route. The previous Government also opted for a Europe-wide PFI solution based on value for money to meet their sealift requirement. How do we know this? Because they advertised on that basis in February 1997 in the Official Journal of the EC. The only difference was that the previous Government were committed to ordering only two ships, rather than the six that we are ordering.
The competition has therefore necessarily been subject to EU treaty and public procurement rules. The legal opinion on that is quite clear. For this reason we are not able to specify that the ships should be built in the United Kingdom, as we can and do for all warships for the Royal Navy.
Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I understand that he has much to say and wants to get on, but I cannot let his remarks about the previous Government pass. The previous Government advertised and took advice from industry, which was part of the process. All the advice that they received was negative, so a rethink began. There was no commitment by the previous Government to go down the road on which the present Government have embarked.
The right hon. Gentleman said earlier that roll on/roll off vessels were not warlike, as they did not enter the war zone. That is not the sole criterion, as he knows. The question is the extent to which the Ministry of Defence can call on such vessels. The right hon. Gentleman's own tender document specifies one ship at five days' readiness—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. That is an extremely long intervention. The debate is

413
important and many hon. Members want to speak. I recognise that the hon. Gentleman is a Front-Bench spokesman, but interventions must be shorter.
Mr. Hoon: Let me deal with the advertisement in the Official Journal. If the hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) is saying that the problems experienced by the previous Government were caused by the advertisement that they placed, I can well understand why industry was anxious about their policies. Placing an advertisement in the Official Journal is a clear indication that the Government intend to go ahead with the contract in question. If the hon. Gentleman is saying that the previous Government placed advertisements to invite industry to participate in a competition, but that they did not really mean it, that says much about their attitude towards industry.
Mr. John Wilkinson: Will the Secretary of State give way?
Mr. Hoon: No. I want to deal with these matters in the round. It was probably a mistake for me to give way a few minutes ago. I intend to make these announcements comprehensively.
We were anxious to encourage competitive UK bids for the ships, and asked all consortiums to explore fully the opportunities for UK build. Indeed, bidders offering overseas build have had to show that UK yards would not have been competitive for those particular ships.
I emphasise that, under EU rules, the Government are not allowed to direct that such ships are built in the UK. The only legal ground on which we are able to award the contract is value for money, defined by reference to price, quality and delivery.
Nevertheless, I am pleased to announce that two of the ships will be built in the UK. Subject to final negotiations, we intend to sign a 25-year contract with the Andrew Weir Shipping Ltd. group based in the UK. This is not a shipbuilding contract, but a contract for the provision of a complete service, including crewing, maintenance, and management of the ships. Andrew Weir has stated that it will provide British crews when the ships are in Ministry of Defence use. The winning bid involves the construction of two ships by Harland and Wolff in Belfast, with the other four to be built in the Flensburger yard in Germany.
Mr. John Bercow rose—
Mr. Hoon: The contract is worth about £950 million in total. Of that, 85 per cent.—more than £800 million—will be spent in the United Kingdom, in Britain's interests, in the interests of the armed forces, and, I am pleased to say, in helping to sustain UK jobs at Harland and Wolff.
Mr. Crispin Blunt rose—
Mr. George Galloway rose—
Mr. Hoon: Moreover, building two of the ships at Harland and Wolff ensures that our armed forces will have the full sealift capability by 2003—the earliest delivery offered by any of the bids—and this option, with ships built against a proven design, was cheaper than any of those offered by any other consortium.
414
It is expected that the order will secure between 400 and 600 jobs in Northern Ireland, and give opportunities for UK suppliers throughout the 25-year period of the contract. Harland and Wolff can also expect to benefit from the partnership with Flensburger. That will further enhance the Northern Ireland yard's prospects of further orders from the international commercial market.
Mr. Frank Field: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Hoon: Let me complete the statement, and I shall certainly give way in due course. I know that some right hon. and hon. Members will be disappointed that shipyards of particular concern to them have not been selected, but I want to proceed to the second announcement, so that the House has a complete picture of what is intended.
The strategic defence review recognised the need to improve our amphibious shipping. We have organised a competition to build two new amphibious landing ships—or, to use the jargon, alternative landing ships logistic. Unlike the roll on/roll off ferries, these are warships and therefore will be built in British yards.
Such capable and flexible vessels are designed to deploy amphibious forces directly into a hostile environment. They provide a capability to be used in conjunction with the new landing platform dock ships, HMS Albion and HMS Bulwark, to deploy the lead elements in an amphibious force. Landing ships like these can also support small and non-warfighting operations, as did two in the taskforce for operation Palliser to Sierra Leone. Currently, this capability is provided by five ageing landing ships. The bulk of these vessels are now more than 30 years old. The vessels are increasingly expensive to maintain, and are severely limited in their operational utility.
I hope that the House will be pleased to learn that I can announce today that we intend to buy four ALSLs, not two. Subject to negotiation of satisfactory terms and conditions, Swan Hunter (Tyneside) Ltd. has been selected as lead shipyard for the programme. Two ALSLs will be built on the Tyne by Swan Hunter, creating 1,000 new jobs in its Tyneside shipyard. This will bring the work force up to 1,800 at their peak, while sustaining about 200 jobs off site. The other two ALSLs will be built to the same design as the two which we intend to negotiate with Swan Hunter. Given that we need these ships as quickly as possible, capacity constraints at Swan Hunter mean that we have decided that they need to be built elsewhere.
Subject to satisfactory contract negotiations, which will be informed by Swan Hunter's price for the first two vessels, these two further ships will therefore be constructed at BAE Systems' Govan yard on the Clyde. Swan Hunter will be contracted by the Ministry of Defence to provide the necessary lead shipyard design services.
The overall value of the contracts which we hope to place for these new 16,000 tonne ships will be about £300 million. Steelwork could begin by the middle of next year. It is worth noting that the contract value of each ALSL is broadly equivalent to building two ro-ro ferries. It is expected that the order will secure about 800 jobs at the Govan yard, together with about 200 jobs off site.

415
I am offering a real lifeline to the BAE yard at Govan, one that will help to sustain the shipbuilding skills base on the Clyde until the type 45 programme comes on stream. I am confident that the management and the unions there will react enthusiastically.
Mr. Tony Worthington: It is regrettable that a statement was not made earlier so that we might fully examine these matters. When will steelwork begin in the Govan yard? It is crucial that the yard be filled now.
Mr. Hoon: I indicated that we would hope that steelwork could begin by the middle of next year. The precise timing is a matter of negotiation between Swan Hunter and BAE Systems. I understand that there is no good reason why that should not occur towards July.
Mr. Ian Davidson: I appreciate the work that is coming to Clydeside. It will be welcomed by the work force, whose members have been on tenterhooks for about 18 months. However, there is a difficulty in the immediate short term about the steelwork. Is my right hon. Friend able to clarify when an order for a floating dock might be awarded? Is it possible to have that order immediately to fill the short-term gap? Many in the shipbuilding industry deprecate the fact that the orders for the ro-ros are going to Germany. An order should have been placed within the United Kingdom to maintain maximum employment and to ensure competitive abilities for the future.
Mr. Hoon: As for the ro-ro ferries and UK build, I set out in considerable detail the legal difficulties that any Government would have faced in trying to place an order for a commercial ship in a UK yard. It would not have been possible. We have discussed these matters at great length over a long period. The legal advice was absolutely clear. The reality is that we could not direct these ships to be built in the UK, because of European Union rules. In the circumstances, we have considered the capacity that is available in UK yards. We have also had regard to the comprehensive programme of shipbuilding. If my hon. Friend examines my statement at greater length, I think he will find that we have been able to provide work at a number of shipyards, and particularly Govan.
As for the gap between the present availability of orders and the prospect of orders in future, I understand that the work that we hope will go to Govan will be sufficient to allow Govan to continue and to provide work for its employees.
Mr. John Burnett: This is extremely disappointing news for Appledore, a good commercial yard which has worked extremely hard and thrived in the commercial world. The Secretary of State has talked about value for money. We are talking about public money. and money that should be accounted for. Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that full details of all successful tenders are placed in the Library for scrutiny?
Mr. Hoon: We have been in regular contact with Appledore. I share the hon. Gentleman's admiration for
416
the skills and ability of that yard. In recent times, it has been successful in securing MOD work. I am confident that it will be equally successful in securing MOD work in the near future.
Ms Rachel Squire: I welcome the good news for Harland and Wolff, Tyneside and Govan. I have yet to meet a shipyard or dockyard worker who wants his success to be paid for at the price of someone else's job. The Government are providing a good balance and a lifeline until the biggest warship order that the UK has seen for years comes into effect. Does my right hon. Friend agree that this makes it even more important that we promote defence diversification to ensure that the excellent engineering skills that we have at Govan and elsewhere find new markets and new opportunities for employment?
Mr. Hoon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I can give her the undertaking that she seeks. She has commented knowledgeably on these matters over a long time. I look forward to further discussions with her, especially on defence diversification.
Mr. Blunt: A lot of money—£950 million—is to be spent on ro-ro ferries. Has any consideration been given to acquiring secondhand ro-ro ferries? What is the case for and against that option?
Mr. Hoon: A great deal of work has been undertaken over a long period to identify the appropriate requirement for this sort of equipment. We have access to various vessels on the charter market, but unfortunately they could not be secured. We could have looked round to ascertain whether there were suitable secondhand but necessarily older and dated vessels available. It was judged that the best way of proceeding was in partnership with the private sector. That is precisely the solution that the previous Government arrived at in judging what was the best for the public purse. Given that we do not require the six vessels all the time, it makes sense that they are used commercially to generate income, rather than being left idle for what could be long periods.
Mr. Galloway: As a Member representing one of the yards concerned, I am grateful finally to have caught my right hon. Friend's eye. In reality, his announcement is not good enough. He will have to go the extra mile. The two ALSLs will not be enough to keep the Govan shipyard open and to employ those who depend upon its activities. My right hon. Friend has acknowledged that the steel will not be cut before June next year. However, Govan runs out of steelwork tomorrow. What will happen between tomorrow and June next year?
I underscore the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Davidson) that we shall have to have something else. The most obvious answer is the floating platform—the submarine repair dock—for which there is now a vital need. It is even more needed than we imagined hitherto. As its technology is essentially that of a large bathtub, it has the advantage of being able to be started upon tomorrow.
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for the extent to which he has responded to the campaign of the trade unions, the Secretary of State for Scotland and others, but he will have to go an extra mile. If not, what he has

417
announced will not get us out of the hole that we have feared, with members of the work force being thrown on the dole for Christmas.
Mr. Hoon: I understand my hon. Friend's concern about his constituents and the yard. Such considerations have been at the forefront of the Government's collective mind for many months, and he and his colleagues have raised questions with me and other Ministers. However, we have been in close consultation and negotiation with BAE Systems, which has assured us that the work will be sufficient to keep the yard open and, specifically, to bridge the gap until the type 45 work becomes available. If my hon. Friend writes to me, I shall examine the issues he raises sympathetically, but I assure him that those are precisely the issues that we have discussed with BAE Systems and I understand their position to be that the work will preserve the future of Govan and its work force.
Mr. Duncan Smith: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Our debate has turned into a statement. No prior notice was given that such announcements would be made, so many interested hon. Members are not present. The main point is that, as we have just discovered, the Government made the announcement in a press release in Scotland this morning—which goes against what the Speaker and you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, have said repeatedly. Are not such actions an abuse of the House?
Mr. Hoon: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I do not want to anticipate anything you might say, but I thought that it would be for the convenience of the House if I made the announcements in the course of a debate on defence procurement that was already scheduled. Clearly, it would have been possible to have made a statement—taking an hour of parliamentary time—and then to have embarked on the debate, but that seemed a somewhat artificial division, given that the subject matter of both statement and debate is defence procurement—[Interruption.] From a sedentary position, the shadow Defence Secretary says that people already knew, but I assure him that, with the exception of those now sitting on the Treasury Bench, no one was aware.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Now that the Secretary of State has responded, let me point out that Mr. Speaker has made it clear that he wants all important decisions that affect the House and that should be heard first by the House to be announced in the House. I know nothing of the press release mentioned, but that is Mr. Speaker's firm position. There is grave danger of an Adjournment debate developing into a statement; it is not a statement, and I have already called for short interventions, so perhaps we can now get on with the business.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have already dealt adequately with the point of order. I shall not take any more now, because we are losing time for an important debate.
Mr. Gerald Howarth: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is it an entirely separate point of order?
Mr. Howarth: It is a separate point of order relating to my travelling to the House and hearing on the radio—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is not a separate point of order.
Mr. Hoon: I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Several hon. Members have been able to make points in interventions, and I am conscious that many more hon. Members want to speak in the debate, so I shall now address the broader subject of the debate: the Government's record on procurement.
Mr. Field: As my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Chapman) and I represent two of the nine Merseyside constituencies where there are fewer people in work now than at the time of the general election, may I ask what message the decision to place orders with a firm that will build in Germany and probably subcontract work to Poland sends to our constituents about how today's announcement has affected employment prospects for Merseyside? If we stay to the end of my right hon. Friend's speech, will we hear good news for Cammell Laird?
Mr. Hoon: In respect of the ferries, Cammell Laird unfortunately failed to meet the requirements on price and delivery. As for the ALSLs, despite submitting a bid, the company withdrew from the competition, citing, among other reasons, its current commercial commitments. Although I realise that today's announcement will be disappointing to those who work at Cammell Laird and to my right hon. Friend, I have to point out that, compared with other shipyards, it currently has a relatively full order book.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Hoon: I shall give way again in due course.
Mr. Gerald Howarth: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It has become perfectly clear from the way in which the debate is proceeding that the Secretary of State is taking innumerable interventions from Labour Members and few—in fact, only one—from Opposition Members, even though the matters being discussed should properly have been the subject of a statement that would have given hon. Members on both sides an equal opportunity to be heard.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: From whom the Secretary of State takes interventions is not a matter for me. Yet again, we are taking time from an important debate.
Mr. Hoon: The two new ship orders I have announced form part of a wider programme of modernisation of the armed forces—a programme worth £6 billion a year. In addition, on 11 July I announced to the House the first three type 45 destroyers which, at about 7,000 tonnes, are the largest and most powerful air defence destroyers ever ordered for the Royal Navy. The two new survey vessels, HMS Echo and HMS Enterprise, will not only enhance the Navy's survey capability but be capable of supporting mine warfare and amphibious operations. The programme also includes the new assault ships Albion and Bulwark, the new Astute class submarines and, of course, the two

419
new aircraft carriers, which enable a quantum leap in our ability to project force around the world. That is the largest programme of warship construction that this country has seen in years—all British warships, all built in British yards.
Dr. Julian Lewis: I thank the Secretary of State for giving way—at last. He has mentioned the type 45 destroyers several times. Is he aware that hundreds of my constituents and those of his hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead) have been issued with protective redundancy notices by Vosper Thornycroft's Woolston shipyard in Southampton? Does he realise that whether they are made redundant depends entirely on whether he firms up one of the type 45 orders by the end of the year? Will he give a commitment to do that? So far this afternoon, he has said nothing that will prevent the closure of the Woolston yard and the loss of hundreds of jobs which could be saved if the MOD simply speeded up its ordering programme.
Mr. Hoon: The hon. Gentleman should examine the facts more carefully before raising those matters in such a cavalier manner on the Floor of the House. He knows that commercial discussions are taking place between the prime contractor, BAE Systems, and Vosper Thornycroft. How the issue is resolved is a matter for those two companies, and the Government have made clear their expectation that the matter will be settled between them. It is not a matter of firming up an order. The issue is a commercial one, involving two private sector companies.
Mr. David Chidgey: Is not the Government's strategy on warship shipbuilding in this country to retain and strengthen competition? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that although when the merger with Marconi took place the prime contractor gave an undertaking to ensure that subcontractors in that company family did not have an advantage over outside companies, Vosper Thorneycroft is extremely concerned that it is getting a bad deal compared with BAE Systems' own contractors? Is not that playing poker with the jobs of my constituents?
Mr. Hoon: Those are precisely the commercial negotiations that have to be undertaken, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that, consistent with my announcement about the allocation of type 45 work, we expect a proper division of work between Vosper Thornycroft and BAE Systems.
Let me now address Army issues—
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Hoon: I have given way several times already. I shall do so again in due course.
The deployment of Challenger 2 tanks to Kosovo has been a significant success for the Army. The tanks have displayed new standards of performance and reliability. In August, Vickers Defence Systems was selected as the preferred bidder for new armoured engineer vehicles to support Challenger 2. The roll-out of the first Westland Apache attack helicopter took place in spring,
420
representing the achievement of a major milestone in a programme that will provide our forces with a potent new capability.
For the RAF, having learned the lessons of Kosovo, we are investing in new anti-armour missiles, an enhanced all-weather precision bombing capability and improved secure air-to-air communications to ensure that our forces can fully play their part in the most demanding of circumstances.
Those were the most pressing capability shortfalls to emerge from the Kosovo conflict and we have acted on them swiftly. Elsewhere, we have a massive forward equipment programme in place.
We are acquiring a stand-off precision strike capability in Storm Shadow, a new air-launched cruise missile; we are undertaking major programmes to modernise the strike and air defence variants of the Tornado; and we are buying a major new capability in ASTOR, the airborne stand-off radar.
On top of that, more major programmes are either under way or in our plans—Eurofighter and its new METEOR air-to-air missile, the future carrier-borne aircraft, the future strategic tanker aircraft, and, of course, as I have already mentioned, new transport aircraft in the shape of four C-17s and the A400M. All those are world-class systems. All of them will result in major enhancements to the capability and utility of our forces, and all of them are threatened by the £16 billion cuts guarantee of the Opposition.
Dr. Norman A. Godman: I want to shift from aircraft to ships. As a former shipwright, I can well understand the bitterness of those hon. Members whose yards have been excluded from the orders, but I am delighted to hear that Harland and Wolff, that badly pressed yard where constituents of mine work, have the order. I am also pleased that Govan has received the order. However, I emphasise the need to fill the short-term gap in Govan by the construction of the floating platform, which I described earlier today as having all the technology of a gigantic bathtub. The technology is there, and, if that could be brought forward, it would save the highly skilled jobs. The problem in Scotland is that we react traditionally—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is making a long intervention on a point that has been made at least once this afternoon.
Mr. Hoon: I think that I am grateful to my hon. Friend. but I must pick him up on his use of the word "excluded". No British shipyard was excluded from bidding for either of the orders. As I have said today, the Government went to a great deal of trouble to ensure that British shipyards were involved and that any of those bidding to provide the service which underlies the ro-ro contract should make it clear why they had not adopted a British solution. Therefore, it is simply not right to suggest that any British yard was excluded. Decisions were wholly consistent with European law and taken on the basis of what was the best value for money.

421
In addition, BAE Systems has said that the order for two ALSLs is most helpful and will help to secure the future of Govan. There is a clear indication that the Government's decision on ALSLs will provide the necessary support to employment in and around the Clyde.
Mr. Alasdair Morgan: Will the Secretary of State concede that, regardless of which yards have been successful, there has been much uncertainty during the past few months, if not years, and that that in itself is damaging in terms of people leaving skilled jobs with resulting skill shortages in yards? In future, will the MOD's procurement policy try to ensure some continuity of ordering so that yards are not faced with the feasts and famines, the peaks and troughs that they have had in the past?
Mr. Hoon: The hon. Gentleman is right. If he examines carefully what I said earlier he will see that the Government have gone to a great deal of trouble in trying to provide a number of different opportunities for a number of different shipyards. But the reality is that, using that platform as a basis from which to operate, those shipyards must go out and win for themselves commercial orders in what I accept is a highly competitive world market, but a world market where a considerable number of ship orders are placed each and every day. This provides an opportunity, but no more than that, for those yards to go out and win work for themselves in the market.
Mr. Wilkinson: The right hon. Gentleman gave a total figure of £3.5 billion for the procurements. What is the breakdown between the leases for the C-17s and the acquisition of the 25 A400Ms? When will the A400Ms start coming into service? Will the C-17s remain on the RAF's books after the A400Ms come into service? Finally, will the C-17s be a lease purchase deal?
Mr. Hoon: I have made it clear, and the hon. Gentleman had the opportunity to ask those questions when I made the statement on the matter, that it would be a lease deal for C-17s. They will be available to the RAF in the short term until there is sufficient heavy lift capacity when the 25 A400Ms, or at least the first of those air transport aircraft, come into service. But clearly we will not take a decision today as to precisely when those aircraft will be available. We are in negotiation with our partners who are equally responsible for the A400M. Those are matters that we will decide as and when necessary in the light of the circumstances at the time. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not expect me to give specific answers to such questions at this stage. It would simply not be sensible to do so.
I referred to the defence cuts threatened by the Conservative party. During the past three years the Opposition have suggested that we are not spending enough on defence. But lately there seems to have been a slight change of tack by the shadow Chancellor, who now seems to be telling us that we are spending too much. This is an opportunity for Opposition Members to intervene, and I shall cheerfully give way, so that we may know precisely what their policy is—whether we are spending too much or too little and whether we are spending it on the right things or the wrong things.
422
I have had the benefit of looking carefully at the background briefing note supplied to Conservative Members as part of the Chancellor's spending review. On defence spending, the central office brief states:
We will match what we can afford in the light of what the country earns: that is the true prudent policy.
I am willing to give way to any Conservative Member who wishes to explain that. It also states:
No responsible party can promise particular increases four years down the line, whatever the economic circumstances.
Finally—perhaps the real giveaway in their policy—it states:
Instead of making pie-in-the-sky promises about more money, Geoff Hoon should start by making we sure we get better value for money already spent.
The Opposition have a bit of a nerve. Having spent the past three years telling us that "efficiency" was code for "cuts", they now tell us that we are not efficient enough.
Mr. Bercow: Given that my right hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Portillo) was a truly outstanding Secretary of State for Defence, would the right hon. Gentleman now care to specify exactly in which speech and on what occasion my right hon. Friend advocated a reduction in defence expenditure? If he is unable to do so, would he just for once have the good grace to apologise and withdraw that remark?
Mr. Hoon: I have cited the evidence on which I rely, which is the central office briefing. At this stage, I am in no shape or form casting any doubts on the ability of the present shadow Chancellor in his former occupancy of the position that I am now privileged to hold. What I am doing is questioning how good a shadow Chancellor he is, and making it clear that when it comes to making the choices that the country will face at the next general election, the electorate will have to choose whether they can rely on his economic policies, given the cuts that the right hon. Gentleman is proposing across the range of public expenditure, particularly with regard to defence.
Mr. Peter Viggers: To put the issue in context, how many firm warship orders have been placed since May 1997?
Mr. Hoon: I shall not give a specific answer. A great number—
Mr. Viggers: None.
Mr. Hoon: No, that is simply not true. There are firm orders. We are not here to play guessing games about the Government's expenditure programme. We want to know the Opposition's proposed defence expenditure, and I am giving those on the Opposition Front Bench every opportunity to tell us. Will they match precisely the amounts of money being made available to defence by this Government? That is a question that they have to face up to, a question which they signally refuse to answer. They have been given an opportunity today, but, again, there has been complete silence from those on the Opposition Front Bench.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Hoon: It seems that they will be saved by their Back Benchers.
Mr. Julian Brazier: The Secretary of State asked for examples of items for which better value

423
could be obtained. Today he has announced enormous expenditure on six shiny new ro-ros, the bulk of which will come from a German yard. Given current overcapacity in world shipping markets, I wonder whether better value could have been found, perhaps through a second-hand option. The Secretary of State's knowledge of those markets is revealed by his extraordinary statement that many vessels are placed with yards around the world every day.
Mr. Hoon: If the hon. Gentleman cares to check, he will find that approximately 2,500 ships are placed for construction around the world each year. That means a lot every day. [Interruption.] Perhaps the hon. Gentleman's grasp of mathematics is better than mine, but I doubt it given his response. [Interruption.] On better value, we organised a competition, and we got best value from the competition in precisely the way in which the previous Government proposed. We have achieved best value. Unless the hon. Gentleman can do no more than make rather windy assertions, he should come to the House with facts.
Mr. Brazier: The Secretary of State has gone for the most expensive option on ro-ros, and is placing the bulk of the order abroad. That has caused some consternation on the Government Benches. He should look across the Atlantic if he wants to see a model of a system that is much cheaper and more cost effective. The American system works at a far lower cost than ours.
Mr. Hoon: One of the hon. Gentleman's colleagues keeps saying that he is a mathematics scholar. Unfortunately, he clearly knows nothing about economics. If he had listened with at least half an ear, he would have heard me make it clear that we had gone for the best value-for-money solution. I am sorry that I have to translate that into simple English for him. It means the cheapest. We have gone for the cheapest option, and that means that we have excluded more expensive options. I am sorry to have set that out in such basic English, but the hon. Gentleman clearly experiences difficulty in hearing and understanding.
It is astonishing to receive lectures from the Conservative party on efficiency. The Conservative Government left us with a massive £3.25 billion cost overrun on the Ministry of Defence's 25 most expensive equipment projects. In our first three years in office, we managed to cut that figure by £500 million, thanks largely to our smart procurement initiative. By sustaining and broadening smart procurement under what we will now call smart acquisition, the improvements and efficiencies will continue.
At the outset, we set ourselves a target of reducing acquisition costs by £2 billion over 10 years. Many Opposition Members scoffed at the suggestion, but I am pleased to tell the House that we now expect to improve on that figure. Thanks to the radical reforms that we have put in place to streamline the acquisition process and cut unnecessary bureaucracy, we are already identifying huge savings that can be made in our equipment programme—savings that will be reinvested in defence.
On the Apache programme, for example, we are investing now to save as much as £30 million a year in support costs. On Challenger 2, we have identified
424
savings of nearly £200 million over the life of the project by working closely with industry on innovative new ways of procuring ammunition and improved design for maintenance techniques. On a £200 million contract for new Rapier air defence missiles, we have achieved savings of more than 20 per cent. with the missiles delivered more quickly than through traditional procurement methods, and the contractor able to secure further export orders as a result. "Faster, cheaper, better": once that was an aspiration, now it is a practical reality.
I shall not pretend that there are no problems; there are bound to be some. The constant need to be at the technological cutting edge means that defence equipment projects will always be difficult. They will always carry risk, and a proportion will always run into problems of one sort or another. That point that has been vividly demonstrated by the problems with HMS Tireless and the rest of our nuclear-powered submarine fleet.
As hon. Members will know, HMS Tireless went alongside in Gibraltar in May following a leak of coolant water in her reactor compartment. It was decided that it would be best if Tireless was repaired in Gibraltar. It is understandable that the Government of Gibraltar sought assurances about the safety of the repair. However, it was not until September that the Chief Minister of Gibraltar agreed that the repair could go ahead.
Mr. Bercow: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Earlier, you made clear the general position of the Speaker on statements that should be made to the House. I wonder if you will offer us further guidance and thoughts, in the light of confirmatory evidence that the Secretary of State's statement was placed on the BBC website at 12.10 pm, precisely one hour and 59 minutes before the right hon. Gentleman toddled along to the Chamber to address hon. Members. What redress do hon. Members have in those circumstances?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have already made the position clear, and Mr. Speaker has made his position clear, too. Announcements that should be made first to the House should not be made to the press prior to that. I shall make sure that the matter is brought to Mr. Speaker's attention, although I am not aware of the true position.
Mr. Hoon: Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) had raised the matter with me, I could have told him that I was still writing the statement minutes before I stood up. I do not know what has appeared on the BBC website or when it appeared. May I make it clear, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that it was not my statement or words for which I am responsible? [Interruption.] I shall have the matter investigated. If I find that someone has released beforehand the text of my statement to the House, I shall take grave exception to that. I have always insisted on making statements on behalf of the Ministry of Defence to the House first. I shall continue to adhere to that practice.
Dr. Julian Lewis: Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is not the Minister being disingenuous? It is not a question of leaking the text of the statement, but of leaking the Government's proposals and plans. That is what matters, not the form of words in which the right hon. Gentleman chose to dress them up when he got around to writing his speech.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Before the Secretary of State responds, I wish to say that I believe that we have dealt

425
with the matter adequately. I have taken points of order, and said all that the Chair can say at the moment. The Secretary of State has also responded; we should now get on with the debate.
Mr. Hoon: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was dealing with the problem of HMS Tireless. Unless and until the Government of Gibraltar said that they were content for the work to go ahead, it would not have been prudent or sensible to continue with the work. We therefore had to await the initial investigation to ascertain the extent of the problem and the investigation of the work that was required.
An initial assessment of the defect on Tireless was that a weld in the reactor cooling system was cracked. Further inspection showed that the cracking was more extensive than originally considered and might be generic. As soon as that possibility was identified, we launched an inspection programme for our other SSN—strategic submarine nuclear—submarines. We therefore could not have started the repair programme any sooner. The shadow Secretary of State's suggestions to the contrary are simply not borne out by the facts. They are unfortunately characteristic of his recent approach to commenting on some matters. I regret that it has been, "Speak first, think later."
Underfunding is not, as the shadow Secretary of State has suggested, to blame. The problem appears to be a design fault on submarines, which were built under successive Administrations of both parties.
I also note that the shadow Secretary of State has criticised the Government for selling our diesel-powered submarines and putting all our eggs in one basket. If the hon. Gentleman had bothered to check his facts before rushing to comment, he would have discovered that the Conservative Government took the decision to dispose of the Upholder class in the first place.
Delaying the sale of the Upholder class submarines to Canada is not a practical means of reducing the temporary shortfall in our operational capability. The first vessel has already been handed over to the Canadians. The remaining three are not ready for sea, and other important factors, including the significant amount of training our crews would require, prevent their use.
We anticipate that the necessary repairs are, in fact, relatively straightforward, but they will take some months to complete because of the protracted procedures that are required to ensure complete nuclear safety during the repair work. In peacetime, safety will always take precedence over operational requirements. The safety of the public and our own personnel is of paramount importance. I am not worried about party political point scoring, and I am sorry that Conservative Members do not seem to share that approach. We will be able to provide protection for the deterrent through the use of other assets—employing additional frigates with towed array and Nimrod maritime patrol aircraft. The safety of the deterrent will not be compromised.
There has also been considerable comment recently on the Kosovo conflict, together with a report on it by the Defence Committee. I welcome the Committee's acknowledgement that
NATO prevailed and that Operation Allied Force can fairly be counted a success.
426
It is, of course, right that we should look at how we might do better in the future. Indeed, many of the Committee's findings parallel those in the Ministry of Defence report on "Lessons from the Crisis", published in June last year. It is important to state that the UK's contribution to the air campaign, far from being "disappointing", as some have commented, was a leading one. We were the fourth largest supplier of combat aircraft, which carried out the third largest number of strike sorties. In looking at what lessons might be learned, we should not lose sight of that considerable success.
There has been a great deal of comment on our precision weapons capability, and I hope that the House will recognise that we have already taken steps to address that matter. We have announced the purchase of Maverick missiles, a proven system that is ideally suited for attacking point targets, particularly in situations where there is high risk of collateral damage. We have also announced that we will be procuring enhanced Paveway bombs which make use of global positioning system technology to guide them to targets in all weather conditions.
Comment has also been made on problems with secure air-to-air communications which affected a number of NATO nations during the Kosovo campaign. Following trials earlier this year, I announced in July that we are now undertaking a programme to fit secure communications to aircraft of the types used in the Kosovo campaign.
We are also addressing the need to improve our strategic ability as a result of the lessons learned in Kosovo. As well as today's announcement, I announced in May this year that we will lease four Boeing C-17 Globemaster aircraft. Our longer term requirement will be met by the A400M Airbus aircraft. In sum, we have already taken very seriously the key equipment capability lessons learned from the Kosovo campaign and we have taken quick action to improve our capabilities.
Hon. Members have expressed concern about other items of equipment. Most will have seen the lurid and sensationalist headlines about other examples of so-called "equipment failures", but I wonder how many know the truth behind the headlines and the scale of the problems that we inherited from the last Government?
Take the SA80, for example. Yes, there are problems, but they were first identified during the Gulf war—nearly 10 years ago, under a Conservative Government. It is only now that we have a Labour Government that those problems are being sorted out. The same is true of the Bowman programme. We are acutely aware of the failings of the current Clansman radio system and the crucial importance of introducing a replacement as soon as possible. However, we inherited a replacement programme that was already over time and over budget with little sign of things getting better. That is why we re-opened the competition for the Bowman requirement—because, sometimes, tough decisions have to be taken. Unlike the Conservative party, we will not shy away from taking them when the effectiveness of our armed forces is at stake.
The status quo is no longer an option. We must modernise our defences by planning for the long term now. Nowhere is that more true than with the future of defence research. The strategic defence review made clear that if the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency is not to go into decline, we must take a new approach—

427
one that enables us to exploit fully the knowledge and technology within DERA; to improve access to civil technologies for military applications; to introduce private capital into DERA to meet its investment needs; and to provide DERA with the freedom it requires to allow it to compete for and reward staff, as well as to develop new business.
Mr. Brazier: The Secretary of State will be aware of the Select Committee's unanimous views on this matter. Was there one single well-recognised body outside Government that upheld the rather strong statement that he has just made—that failure to do something along the lines proposed would result in DERA going into steep decline?
Mr. Hoon: I have cited the justification. There was widespread support for and recognition of the fact that, if DERA is to survive and provide the high-technology research that it currently conducts, it is necessary to have access to private capital and, more importantly, to echo the way in which the private sector now conducts research.
Historically, much leading-edge research was done by Government or Government-sponsored agencies. That is no longer the case today. Much of the work that would have been done through the Government or their agencies is now being done by the private sector. It is necessary to adjust the way in which DERA operates to take account of that fact.
Mr. Quentin Davies: In light of the Secretary of State's response to my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier), how come the Americans are perfectly happy that their own military research institutes can continue to thrive and fulfil their role without being privatised or partially privatised?
Mr. Hoon: The hon. Gentleman gave away the answer to his question with his use of the word "institutes". The United States has a range of facilities available to it: some in the private sector; some, I accept, in the public sector; some part way between the two. The difference between the United States and any other country in the world, including the United Kingdom, is that the US has a wealth of available research material and institutional structures.
Mr. Davies: They are not privatised.
Mr. Hoon: The reality is that many are already in the private sector. I wish that we had greater facilities available, but this country has limited means and we have to spend those means in the best way possible. The reality is that we have only one research facility available to us. We judge that it is necessary to attract both private capital and private expertise to give DERA the opportunity of continuing its leading-edge research into the future. Part of DERA will go into the private sector; equally, part will be retained in the public sector. In a sense, that is precisely what is available to the United States Government; research available both from the private sector and the public sector.
428
I recognise that there are those who disagree. I am not pretending that there is widespread or unanimous support for the change. I see my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George), the Chairman of the Defence Committee, in the Chamber, and I hope that those who have misgivings will at least accept that we have taken on board some of the criticisms and modified our plans accordingly.
I must make clear that the onus is on those who oppose our plans to say how they would instead provide the commitment and investment needed for the future. Given the remarkable pace with which technology is changing, it is not, in my view, credible to expect the taxpayer alone to foot the bill. It is surely right that we should involve the private sector so that we can take DERA forward into expanding markets in the international arena. I have to say that I find it slightly odd that I should have to make that point to those in the Conservative party who were never this squeamish about public-private partnerships when they were in power.

Of course, the Conservatives are perfectly entitled to say now that they will scrap the DERA public-private partnership. However, they are not then entitled to complain about defence cuts when, on this policy alone, they would effectively be taking hundreds of millions of pounds out of the defence budget at a single stroke.
Mr. Duncan Smith: The Secretary of State may be about to say what the Conservatives think about privatisations or private finance initiatives. He will know that the previous Government looked at this proposal in detail and they, of all Governments, said that it was not do-able and rejected it. That is why we are opposed to it.
Mr. Hoon: I am grateful for the clear indication—the first we have had—of the Conservatives' spending plans on defence. The reality is that they will have to explain to the electorate how they will find the extra money that DERA would otherwise provide to the defence budget. We have already identified within the Conservative party's general financial expenditure plans a gap of some £16 billion that it will have to fill by cuts in public services.
On defence, a new and deeper black hole is emerging. The Conservatives will have to say how they will fill that hole. Will they cut the equipment programme? We are having a defence procurement debate; this is an opportunity for the hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) to say precisely which equipment programme he proposes to cut: type 45; Meteor; A400M; Eurofighter? Which is it? Which defence activity or operation will they cut? The hon. Gentleman's policy simply is not credible unless he can answer that question.
At the next general election, the people of Britain will face a clear choice on defence: between a Conservative party that would submit our armed forces and their equipment to death by a thousand cuts, and a Labour Government who are investing in the future of Britain's defences; between a Conservative party that just talks tough on defence, and a Labour Government prepared to match words with action; between a Conservative party that is committed to cutting the defence budget to pay for tax cuts for a privileged few, and a Labour Government who are committed to the first real-terms, year-on-year increase in the defence budget since the end of the cold war.

429
After more than a decade of cuts under the Tories, we have a Labour Government who are prepared to invest in the future of our nation's defences. Ours is a record to be proud of, and I commend it to the House.
3.9 pm
Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: I will not start as I had originally planned, because the Secretary of State started with a major announcement. We expected a debate on defence procurement, but he effectively gave us a statement on a particular procurement programme, then a party political broadcast, followed by a quick trot through about 30 or 40 different programme issues, to which we shall come later.
Let me deal first with the roll on/roll off stuff. I deplore the fact that the House is the last to hear about the issue, not because of a pompous view that the House must hear first just for the sake of it, but because we should be able to question how the programme is to work. There is a nicety about giving Opposition parties notice of detailed statements so that we can ask specific questions. The press were briefed in Scotland and there was an article on the BBC website, then one of my colleagues heard something about it on the 2 o'clock news. That strikes me as an abuse not only of Parliament but of the British public, because they have a right to some answers.
There has been a deceitful process from the start in the roll on/roll off ferries programme. The Secretary of State talked about the previous Government's private finance initiative, but that Government said that they did not believe that that was ultimately the right way forward, after receiving clear indications from industry and others that the requirements for the ships were such that they could not be best met in that way.
In the strategic defence review, the Government decided to increase the requirements and to proceed with the PFI, but the tender documents show that the ships are not in essence commercial: they are military ships that can be used by some companies for some commercial activity. The PFI is a clever way of effectively giving ownership to a commercial company and thus being able to turn round and blame European competition rules for forcing us to place the orders overseas. For a Government who go on about their European credentials to use Europe as an excuse in that way is deceitful, especially as the major issues are not dealt with.
Mr. Hoon: Is the hon. Gentleman seriously telling us that the previous Conservative Government did not intend to see through the invitation that they placed in the Official Journal of the European Union in February 1997, two months or so before they lost the general election?
Mr. Duncan Smith: The reality is that the information and input from industry and others was such that those who left government in 1997 were clear in their minds that the programme would not have worked as they had advertised it. I make no bones about that. I believe that to be the case. If we had been in government now, my belief is that I and others would have recognised that the ships are essentially military. It is not credible to blame the Europeans.
The Secretary of State gave the game away when he talked earlier about best value and referred to getting the cheapest option. If we think for one moment that the
430
French or Germans would place an order in Govan, for example, we are living in cloud cuckoo land. There is a serious need to rethink, not only because of jobs but because there is a strategic reason for building the ships in the United Kingdom.
Mr. Davidson: I have already made my position clear on where the orders should have gone. I seek clarification on a matter that I have pursued in some detail for some time. The Conservative Government placed the invitation in the European Official Journal. When did the Conservative party decide that that was not the route to follow? This is the first that I have heard about any change of mind. Had I known about this before, I would of course have been better armed when I went to pursue Ministers. I wonder whether this is a debating trick being produced out of a hat, or whether it is a genuine change of mind. If it is, why did the hon. Gentleman not tell us about it ages ago?
Mr. Duncan Smith: I have talked to colleagues of the hon. Gentleman about this matter—one, in particular, who is not present in the Chamber today—and expressed that view to them. It was not possible to raise the matter in the House, because no announcement was made by the Government. My comments are also on record in the Scottish press. In my view, the requirements of the tender have always made the ships military vehicles with a commercial aspect, not the other way round. I am not making a party political point. This is a national issue on which I fundamentally disagree with the Government's interpretation. I am sorry that those who would have built the ships in Govan will not necessarily do so, not only because of jobs but because that would have benefited the United Kingdom.
Mr. Hoon: The hon. Gentleman's last remarks will help the House to make a judgment on who exactly lives in cloud cuckoo land. He is entitled to his view, which he has emphasised, but he supported the previous Government, who took quite a different view and placed the invitation in the Official Journal. Had the requirement been for a warlike, military vessel, they would not have had to do that.
I accept that the hon. Gentleman was well known in the previous Parliament for disagreeing with the then Government on Europe, but it is not enough for him to say that we are now blaming the Europeans. We are all Europeans. We are subject to the rules of the European Union, to which, incidentally, and however much he may regret it, that Government signed up. We are simply applying the rules in accordance with our legal advice. It is not enough for him to substitute his own view—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am reluctant to interrupt the Secretary of State, but he spoke for an hour earlier, and those on both Front Benches must realise that, although they have important contributions to make—indeed, they are the centrepiece of our debate—we also have an awful lot of Back Benchers here who want to say something.
Mr. Duncan Smith: We can go round and round the fence debating what was the previous Government's intention, but the key fact remains that the Government have chosen today to announce in essence that orders for four ships that should have been placed with a British

431
yard will go to a foreign yard. The prime candidate would have been Govan, but any British yard would have done. I disapprove of the Government's shameful action and, if we were in government today, I would not be doing as they are.
Mr. Bercow: Given the Secretary of State's earlier disingenuousness, does my hon. Friend agree that the very least that the right hon. Gentleman owes the House is that he should urgently initiate a full leak inquiry to establish precisely how his intentions got out earlier than he supposedly intended? Should not that inquiry involve full interrogation of senior members of the Ministry of Defence press office and of—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We have already more than adequately dealt with that subject.
Mr. Duncan Smith: I will not answer my hon. Friend, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I hope that he can pursue the matter directly with the Secretary of State.
It is probably best to move on now from the roll on/roll off saga. We have not had a good day on that in the House, so let us move on and hope that there will be deeper and further investigations, both up in Scotland and in other shipyards, as well as here in Parliament, where I hope that we can return to the matter, perhaps even next week.
I turn now to the main issue of smart procurement, around which the debate revolves.
Mr. Davidson: I am conscious that the hon. Gentleman wants to move away from the question of the ro-ros, and I am happy to do so, but will he clarify the Opposition's position with regard to the other orders for landing ships? Where would the hon. Gentleman place the orders for those four ships?
Mr. Duncan Smith: I meant no discourtesy to the yards that have received the orders, and I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has given me the opportunity to congratulate them. Clearly, I congratulate the Govan yard on the order that it has been given, and I sincerely hope that it is enough to get the yard through a difficult time. The other yard to have secured orders is Swan Hunter, and I congratulate it too. The hon. Gentleman is right: I should have said something about the matter, and I apologise to the House for not doing so.
However, I have visited the yard at Appledore, and I am distinctly worried that we could lose the key shipbuilding expertise of what is one of the few remaining yards in the south-west region of the country. I am not about to shed any crocodile tears: I am the first to accept that previous Governments have made many mistakes, but we are at the point where we must decide what we feel about our national shipbuilding capability.
I hope that there will be an opportunity to debate such matters. The Swan Hunter yard is sitting on an order for type 45 vessels, but the Secretary of State today did not mention a matter about which the Govan yard is also waiting for news. If the Secretary of State had said that type 45 orders were to be placed, I should have liked to know exactly when that would happen.
Mr. Burnett: The hon. Gentleman mentioned the Appledore yard, which is in my constituency. It is a very
432
competitive yard, with an outstanding work force. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, if the orders about which he has spoken had gone there, they would have allowed it to enlarge its covered yard? That would have increased Appledore's capacity and competitiveness and allowed it to offer greater value for money—for the Ministry of Defence as for others.
Mr. Duncan Smith: I recognise that. As I said, I visited Appledore, and happen to think that, as well as having a brilliant work force, it has a brilliant chief executive. I wish that the Secretary of State would meet him. He would be persuaded that there is a man who knows about shipbuilding. He is quite superb—as I am sure are the chief executives of other yards.
However, taking four ships away from British yards means that there are fewer to spread around. If those four vessels were ordered to be built in this country, shipyards such as Appledore might, if not prosper, at least find life a little easier.
I now move on to the broader subject of smart procurement. First, I want to say that I welcome the Government's measures, arising out of the SDR, to improve the streamlining and efficiency of acquisition procedures. That is the benefit that smart procurement has brought, and it is not a question of party politics. However, before Ministers glow too warmly and get too happy about that compliment, I have to say that that streamlining followed a lot of work by the previous Government, who recognised that change was necessary. Smart procurement may be a new initiative in terms of language, but all its components were gestating in the Ministry of Defence before this Government took over.
In that regard, I wish to give credit to Sir Robert Walmsley, who has played a huge role in driving smart procurement along. Credit is also due to Sir Sam Cowan's work at the Defence Logistics Organisation. I am sure that the Secretary of State and the House will agree that, although civil servants elsewhere in government have been criticised today, those two are shining examples of how best to make departments work.
It has been clear for a long time that procurement procedures had to be reformed. I am the first to admit that. It was encouraging that the Government began with a logical and rational procedure, aligning equipment needs to future military strategy. Smart procurement's reduction of input resources in terms of staff and its transfer of responsibility to industry, alongside the rationalisation of the Defence Procurement Agency, was a good start, as was the creation of the DLO.
However, I want to turn to the budgetary element of the smart procurement strategy. The Secretary of State dealt with that aspect, but it deserves examination. The Government claim that smart procurement will achieve savings of about £2 billion over 10 years. Everyone hopes that smart procurement will live up to that aspiration. If it does not, our armed forces could be left dangerously under-equipped.
However, the National Audit Office review "Major Projects Report 1999" stated
It is too early to tell whether Smart Procurement will fulfil all of its aims

433
The Public Accounts Committee has also criticised the way in which Ministers have measured savings from smart procurement. It stated:
A proportion of the £2 billion savings…represents deferred expenditure.
What assurance can the Secretary of State and his Ministers give that the Government's future equipment programme is affordable, if so many existing projects are over budget? How can that be squared? If that cannot be done now, I hope that the Under-Secretary, when he winds up the debate, will give the House some answers in absolute terms. I hope that he, or the Secretary of State, will say which programmes will have to be cut if smart procurement does not meet the ambitions savings targets that have been set. Much of the Ministry of Defence's budget rests on three elements, one of which is achieving the savings targeted for smart procurement. Some of the equipment programmes may be in difficulty if the savings are not achieved.
Other difficulties associated with smart procurement need to be raised. For example, will the Secretary of State say why the recently appointed smart acquisition team has been given a life of only one year? Does the Ministry have a longer-term commitment to making smart acquisition work? I hope that the Under-Secretary will answer that question when he winds up. Why has the team been given only one year, rather than longer? What is the plan?
Does the Secretary of State have any plans to merge the DPA and the DLO? That merger is beginning to look logical, and I hope that the Under-Secretary will deal with that when he winds up.
The role of smart procurement in collaborative programmes is also important. I shall make some observations on that matter later, but what steps is the Ministry taking to ensure that smart processes are employed in some of the worst ventures with international partners? Later on, we shall examine some individual cases but, although Ministers are always keen to lay blame at the door of the previous Government, they may be stumbling into some of the same errors themselves.
Despite the progress made in procurement procedures under smart procurement, problems with equipment acquisition continue, especially in terms of programme slippage. Over the summer, the National Audit Office found that the average in-service date delay had increased by four months to 47 months since its previous report was issued in 1998.
For the smart procurement initiative to be a success, the Government must resist the temptation to make changes to programmes for purely political purposes. That is the critical element in the debate. Previous Governments have fallen into that fault, and this Government appear about to do the same in a number of cases.
That is especially true in relation to collaborative programmes. Smart procurement should be about letting industry get on with such programmes. The Government are part of the contract, and must adopt a self-denying ordinance in that regard.
For example, there is the Brimstone missile programme, about which I have some concerns that I hope that the Under-Secretary or the Secretary of State will answer. The Government were rightly keen to trumpet the
434
announcement of new, precision-guided weapons. The Secretary of State did so again today. However, he neglected to mention that the Government appear to be cutting back on the Brimstone programme.
Brimstone is a superb, all-weather, precision-guided missile. It would have been ideal for use in poor weather in places such as Kosovo, and was due for service with the Royal Air Force next year. I think that the due date was March, but I stand to be corrected on that.
However, the Select Committee on Defence has reported that it believes that the RAF will order 25 per cent. fewer missiles than originally planned. Why? In addition, I understand that the Government have asked contractors to delay delivery by up to one year.
The Government say that they want smart procurement to achieve improvements in procurement, but are beginning to take decisions—cutting programmes, introducing delays—that will create a problem for industry.
The Government have an opportunity today to put all those rumours—if they are rumours—to bed. Will the Secretary of State tell us what is correct? Are the Government cutting the programme in terms of numbers of missiles, and are they planning to delay the programme? I am happy to give way at this point—however, I see from the Under-Secretary that he will answer that point specifically in the winding-up speech.
Mr. Bruce George: The initial starting date for Brimstone was 1990. What happened between 1990 and 1997?
Mr. Duncan Smith: The hon. Gentleman, who is chairman of the Select Committee on Defence, knows very well that that programme was delayed. I make no bones about it: the previous Government came to it, went away from it and came back to it again. The Committee's reports illustrated that; they were highly critical, and rightly so. However, when the decision was finally made to go ahead, the industry—in this case I think that it was Marconi, which became BAE—stuck to its part of the bargain.
The hon. Gentleman is correct to say that Brimstone should have been in service a long time ago. I make no excuses for that. The industry has said, "Now we have the firm order, and know what is required. There will be no more messing around from the Government. We will meet the March date in 2001, and we will meet it on cost and capability." My worry is that the report may mean that, just as this most smart of procurements could be proved, it could be chopped away at the knees. Let us not see a repeat of what happened before—that is my main concern.
I turn now to the pressures on the defence budget in general and, more particularly, to certain reports about the Royal Air Force. I hope that the Minister will deal with the recent press reports about how the RAF will lose at least— [Interruption.] The Secretary of State is compressing it, but I suspect that he will have more than he anticipates. It has been reported that the RAF will lose at least three of its front-line squadrons under plans drawn up to claw back some £1.5 billion overspent on defence procurement projects.
Those same reports said that the plans presented to the air force board were to be held back until after the next election, disguised, as they said, as a modernisation of

435
the RAF's capabilities to protect the Government—any Government, I suppose, but particularly this one—from charges that they were going back on their commitment not to make further defence cuts.
Intriguingly, on learning of the leak, the Under-Secretary said that the paper was written before the Ministry of Defence's budget was increased in the summer spending review. About a week later, a further leak showed that this paper was not shown to the air force board until its monthly meeting on 2 August—two weeks after the spending review was announced, and when the Government, and the Minister, knew how much money was in the defence budget. So it was not, as he seems to have suggested—I am ready to be corrected—that the Air Force board saw the paper after it knew of the extra money.
Will the Minister also confirm that comments were made at that meeting about reducing a front-line type of aircraft, which would thus reduce cost? That is one way of doing it. Rumours are circulating that it could be the Tornado F3, the Jaguar, or the Nimrod maritime patrol aircraft. [Interruption.] I did not leak those documents because I did not have them. Or is the Minister suggestion that we, too, sit on the air force board?
Those documents were in existence and were presented on 2 August, unless the Minister denies that. Now he must explain why he said that they were presented before the budget announcement, not after. That is of great significance. I hope that he will also confirm that no such plans will be implemented.
The Secretary of State mentioned type 45, but he did not talk much about the carriers. Before the summer recess, the Secretary of State announced that the Government intended to go ahead with the order. I welcomed that announcement at the time. There have been discussions about the collaborative Horizon project mess for much the same reasons. We have been around this fence before. However, we still do not actually have the order. We have heard of difficulties from Vosper Thorneycroft.
I hope that, even if the Government cannot announce the order today—as they seem to have chosen to do in the debate on ro-ros—they can at least alleviate the fear and concern in Vosper Thorneycroft, whose work force has lay-off orders. As they have decided that they will spend the money on this project, will they please make the announcement as soon as possible?
Mr. Paul Keetch: When the Government make an announcement about the type 45s, does the hon. Gentleman agree that the ships should be capable of launching not just the principal anti-air-missile system missile but also other missiles, particularly Tomahawk? An ability to do this from a ship at sea on the surface would add greatly to our capability of launching cruise attacks, particularly at the moment, when our submarine fleet, which provides the only existing way of launching cruise attacks, is unfortunately in port.
Mr. Duncan Smith: The key point for the Government in the context of the hon. Gentleman's question is: what are we producing these ships for? Obviously they must have the best equipment to deal with possible threats.
436
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the Government must take into consideration the requirement that the equipment must not be second rate but must deal with the perceived threat. The threat should be explained, and a ship designed around it.
I will not follow the hon. Gentleman in trying to specify exactly what equipment should be used—that is not my role. That should come from the members of the military who advise the Government. I hope that the Government take that advice on board and provide the best equipment available, not cut-price equipment. We do not want a ship that is incapable of dealing with today's threats, let alone threats in the future.
I ask the Government to get on with that. It would help those who work in the shipyards. More particularly, there is a glaring gap in our capability, which was created by the collapse of the Horizon programme. There will be many who have smiles on their faces, saying, "I told you so". We do not want to go over that again, but I hope that we have learned the lessons from it. The decision on type 45 is the right one, but for goodness' sake, let us get on with it as quickly as possible.
In winding up the debate, will the Minister—or the Secretary of State—inform the House of the latest position on the replacement of faulty rotor heads on Lynx helicopters? On a visit that my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) and I made to a base, we were told worrying stories about how far too many Lynx helicopters were grounded and unable to fly. Pilots are literally queueing up, like a local enthusiasts' air club, to fly Lynx helicopters in rotation, because they cannot get their hours on the Lynx helicopters that they would normally fly. What is the position? Can the Government give us any time scale? How long will it take to remedy the problem? When will those Lynx helicopters be back in the air, as they should be?
The Secretary of State mentioned another procurement project, the SA80. The Kosovo report and others have highlighted the problems and failures of the SA80 over the years. The previous Government, in previous iterations, went through get-well programmes that clearly did not work. The Government have taken a decision, in the light of all the concern about the SA80, to upgrade—[Interruption.] If the Secretary of State holds on, I will use my own words; I do not need a prompt from him.
The point is that—despite concerns about the light support weapon as well as the personal weapon, which the Secretary of State knows are widespread—the Government have now decided to go ahead and spend about £80 million on upgrading the SA80. That is about £400 per weapon. The right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues have clearly reached that conclusion in the belief that the get-well programme—for that is what it is—will eradicate all the problems that have made the military so concerned about the weapon and so dismissive of its capabilities, to the extent that special forces and others do not want to use it if they can avoid it.

Presumably, the Government's decision will deal with that problem. Therefore they must state beyond any doubt today that the weapon will be as capable as it should be. One of the tests is whether the Government honestly believe that the weapon will reappear on the NATO

437
approved weapons list after the upgrade. If they do not, they must explain the reason behind the decision to upgrade rather than to go for another weapon.
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mr. John Spellar): Which one?
Mr. Duncan Smith: If the Minister concerned has decided that he needs advice from the Opposition about what weapon to buy, he is being paid far too much for the grade that he is in.
Mr. Brazier: It is common knowledge in the armed forces that the Army wants the Armalite—it has wanted it from the beginning. If we cannot afford a complete replacement, it would be much better to spend the available money on replacing SA80s with Armalites for front-line troops—a partial replacement with a decent weapon—instead of trying to get a little more life out of that hopeless weapon again.
Mr. Duncan Smith: I hear what my hon. Friend says, and my only answer is to question the Government yet again. The answer to my hon. Friend's question lies in the Government's answer to mine. They must say at the Dispatch Box today, beyond any doubt, in the winding-up speech if necessary, that the programme will completely eradicate the problems that have beset the weapon. Let us forget the history. We want to know now whether that is the Government's view. If they cannot say that, it opens up the debate about whether another weapon should be entertained for approximately the same cost. They must know what the figures are.
The other part of the equation concerning whether the Government replace or repair the weapon is what will happen to the Nottingham facility in the process. Having placed the contract with BAE Systems, the Government know that most of the work—the only important part of it—is going to Germany to the Heckler and Koch facility, which BAE owns. Are the Government concerned in any way that the Nottingham facility, which is the last serious small arms manufacturer in the country, will simply close?
The Secretary of State's initial response to such questions was that the Government must deal with best value, but in the summer he seemed to twitch slightly, and to suggest to BAE that it could do more work at the Nottingham facility. He may want to correct me, but those were certainly the press reports. I will give way if he wants to tell us his view of the work at that facility—whether it should do more than simply strip the weapons down, and whether it should do some of the work that is going to Germany. Does he believe that, or is he content with the present arrangement with BAE? Obviously, he does not want to answer that question.
Mr. Wilkinson: Before my hon. Friend terminates his catalogue of equipment grief, will he ask the Secretary of State when Tucanos that have been grounded will be airworthy again, and at what additional cost Royal Air Force pupil pilots are being sent to Australia? We were given no clarification of that matter because of the total imbalance in the right hon. Gentleman's speech.
Mr. Duncan Smith: I simply relay my hon. Friend's question to Ministers. I hope that it is another question
438
that the Under-Secretary will answer in his reply, as it deserves an answer. Clearly, the Secretary of State is not prepared to answer my question about the Nottingham facility. Will the Under-Secretary confer with his right hon. Friend and decide exactly what their position is on that facility? The people who work there ought to know whether the Government are rethinking. If they are not, those workers will at least know what their future holds. The Government must make that clear.
On Bowman—as the Secretary of State has decided to run that as part of his re-election campaign—again I make no bones about the fact that the project has gone on far too long. Yet again, I spy the brooding presence of the Chairman of the Select Committee on Defence in the corner of the Chamber—as the Secretary of State also found, to his cost.
Mr. Spellar: My hon. Friend is smiling.
Mr. Duncan Smith: One cannot accuse the Chairman of the Select Committee of smiling—that will ruin his reputation. As he knows, because his reports have stated it many times, and he has long been a member of the Committee, as well as its Chairman for some time, there are huge and inescapable problems with the project. The Government must bear some responsibility for the delays that have taken place. They have been in power nearly four years, and in that time they have stated their belief that the Bowman project, and Archer Communications Systems in particular, were spot on, and that there were no problems.
Even as late as March, the Minister for Defence Procurement said:
This Government have now put Bowman on a sound footing to ensure that the Armed Forces can have the new radio system that they deserve as soon as possible.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 8 March 2000; Vol. 610, c. 1082-3.]
"Hooray," we all said—but three months later they said, "Enough's enough. Bowman simply has to be scrapped." Now they say that they will reconsider the matter.
It is no good merely blaming the previous Government. We are four years into this Government and we have only just received an unequivocal answer from them. They are going to change the programme. They must take responsibility for the delays of the past four years. If they were so angry about it and thought so little of it, why did they not scrap it when they came to power? They waited all that time, so they must answer that question, too.
Mr. Chidgey: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for mentioning the Bowman project, which was being run by Archer Communications Systems Ltd., which was in my constituency. Does he agree that one of the tragedies of that failure, which predates smart procurement—goodness knows what would have happened under smart procurement—is that not only have we lost the project, but we have lost £200 million of taxpayers' money and 650 highly skilled engineering jobs in my constituency? Those people have moved elsewhere and they will not be replaced.
Mr. Duncan Smith: Clearly, the programme has all the hallmarks of the worst of the excesses that we have come to regret in the annals of the Ministry of Defence. The Select Committee has made that clear time and again.

439
The Government now bear some responsibility for the further delays to the programme. They cannot shake that off. If we are prepared to accept that previous Governments bear some responsibility, this Government should stop playing political games and simply admit that they could have got on with it earlier if they thought that it was such a disaster. They did not. In March they were busy reassuring everyone that they had the solution, and then they suddenly said that they did not have it. They have been in power nearly four years and must start to accept some responsibility. I know that that is difficult and that they do not like doing it.
Previous Conservative Governments found out the hard way about international collaboration. Meteor and the A400M illustrate some of the concerns. Certainly, I would like to think that we found it out; posterity has certainly done so. Such programmes are fraught with nightmare problems, and when I mention the wranglings and the setbacks of the Eurofighter programme—who can forget those? —I think that the Secretary of State will agree. The programme has been put back years. I saw the first prototype fly years ago—perhaps the right hon. Gentleman also saw it. It is absurd that we should now be expecting an in-service date as late as 2005. I am not trying to score a political point, because this has happened over a long period, with many nations making absurd declarations about production figures and the like.
The type 45s come on the back of the Horizon failure and the collapse of the multi-role armoured vehicle programme. Those are just three examples. The Government know that there are others, such as the third generation anti-tank weapon. We have gone round the fence many times and I wonder when we shall learn the lessons. Despite those harsh lessons, such multi-nation collaborative programmes remain a serious problem.
I am worried that the Government may be about to repeat past mistakes by participating in some European procurement strategies that run the risk of creating a fortress Europe and alienating others in the NATO alliance. I should like the Secretary of State to respond to my worry that we may be artificially creating two monopolistic blocs that unnecessarily divide NATO—not what British industry wants. The Minister will be aware that, for all the grand talk generally about European defence initiatives and improved European defence capability, by and large, defence spending across Europe is plummeting, although some countries are worse than others.
Mr. Hoon: Given the hon. Gentleman's comments about multinational defence co-operation, would a Conservative Government support the A400M project?
Mr. Duncan Smith: If the Secretary of State allows me about 20 seconds, I shall answer his question. I want to deal with matters in turn. I shall deal with Meteor first, then A400M, because I have serious concerns and should like some answers.
In the summer, it was reported that the Meteor missile proposed for use on the Luftwaffe's Eurofighter combat aircraft did
not meet the German's Air Force operational requirements,
440
according to the Luftwaffe's chief of air staff planning. I should be grateful if the Minister or the Secretary of State could tell us what the status of that report is, and whether that confusion will create difficulties with the memorandum of understanding for Meteor. Will we start to repeat some of the earlier problems with the European fighter aircraft?
If the controls on Meteor are tight, and if BAE is allowed to run the project, we may be able to deliver Meteor properly. I hope that we do, because the Secretary of State is right that Meteor is critical to the RAF's future capability. I make no bones about that, and it is therefore right to go ahead with that decision.
I have some serious concerns about the A400M, about which there are further problems that are of greater concern. Can the Minister or the Secretary of State tell us about the present position of the contract management for A400M? I have heard that the Germans are now demanding project leadership. Is that the case? Are the reports that there is no money in either the French or German defence budgets for that programme correct? Are the numbers of aircraft to be ordered realistic?
One of the great problems with the Eurofighter was that certain countries inflated their requirement. I do not believe that the United Kingdom did so, or that it has done so with this project. I suspect that if anything, we are at the bottom end of what may be the requirement, but one has to question whether some other countries will end up taking delivery of the numbers that they included in the schedules. That is the key point, because there is a critical mass and the item may become very expensive—much more so than on paper—if countries do not take the required numbers.
The Secretary of State asked me whether I supported the project. I had deep concerns when he announced it. I recognised why he had to make that announcement, but I said that the devil lies in the detail of the answers to the questions. If the right hon. Gentleman is unable to answer those questions or is unsure about those points, he needs to revisit the project. To be fair to all those concerned—from BAE onwards—we should tell them whether we are certain that the project can seriously go ahead. To do anything else would be repeating the same mistakes.
If the right hon. Gentleman can answer those questions, and if he is sure that there are no problems and that everything will be sorted out, he may well be right to go ahead with the project—otherwise we shall repeat earlier mistakes. Therefore the answer to his question is yes, I will support the project—so long as he can say that the numbers, and the other points that I made, are not a problem.
In the preamble to the OCCAR convention, signed in September 1998, the four participating Governments—France, Germany, Italy and the United Kingdom—seemed to lay the foundations for a fortress Europe in defence procurement, stating that
a strengthening of their co-operation in defence equipment will contribute to the establishment of a European security and defence identity and is a practical step towards the creation of a European armaments agency".
Those foundations are built on article 6, which states:
When meeting the requirements of its armed forces, each Member State shall give preference to equipment in whose development it has participated within OCCAR".

441
That is worrying. The requirement seems to be at odds with the whole point of smart procurement—the procurement of the best equipment at best value and the most competitive price. If such a political requirement is introduced into that process, it will create nightmare problems for smart procurement.
Surely, procurement for the armed forces cannot be devoted to any grand European design; it should be about the best that is available. There should not be a fortress Europe versus a fortress United States. That would be a grave mistake, as the Secretary of State should be aware, and as British industry would tell him. I hope that the Government will agree that projects should be set, as far as possible, according to benchmark standards of interoperability with the best in NATO. Often, but not always, the best happens to be the USA. As we saw in Kosovo, the USA is best in certain aspects.
The key must be that we in NATO can operate in conjunction with those with other equipment. That requires us to look more widely than simply focusing on Europe. The wisdom of the approach has been seen in Kosovo. I hope that the Secretary of State, or the Minister when he responds, will deal with how the Government intend to square such a grand political design with the reality that the armed forces want best value.
The Government have referred to the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency, and I want to raise some points that have been raised many times, mostly by the Select Committee. I thought that the Government's first attempt at the partial privatisation of DERA was almost a fiasco. It was attacked by more or less everyone, not just the Select Committee, and the industry and the United States made their views clear. Despite the outcry following the Government's first consultation paper, instead of producing a genuinely new proposal that might have squared the problem, they simply seemed to go round the fence one more time and make a few corrections.
Questions still remain on many key issues. For example, exactly who will be allowed to buy shares in the privatised companies? There is an issue of national security. What will be the limitations on new company activities? What will be the relationship between the privatised and the retained parts of DERA? Even now, the industry complains about the thorny problem of intellectual property rights.
The Secretary of State will know that DERA is crucial to the process involved in any high-tech project, yet the Government are now putting that at risk. The United States is, of course, an ally with which we have had a long and fruitful history of successful collaborative projects, and the relationship is improving all the time. Technology transfer and exchange are now better than they have been for a considerable time. Harrier, Apache—which the Secretary of State mentioned—Trident and the joint strike fighter are all programmes in which Britain and the United States are collaborating, or have collaborated, with great mutual success.
The JSF is a prime example of how the DERA programme begins to hurt. I remind the Secretary of State of its huge potential not only for BAE, but for industry across the board. Already questions have begun to emerge. [Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman. Whoever is carrying that bleeper should have turned it off before they brought it into the Chamber.
Mr. Duncan Smith: How will the United States transfer the key technologies that are relevant to that programme, as BAE will tell them time and again that stealth technologies are critical? There is no joint programme if BAE does not have access to those critical technologies. Yet I hope and believe that BAE will tell the Secretary of State what it has told me: it is deeply worried after conversations with the Americans, who are saying that they have no idea about what will happen to places such as Boscombe Down, or what the relationship will be, and that they are loth to make commitments on those technology transfer issues, all of which will be damning.
If the Minister thinks that the Americans are absolutely on-side, I must tell him that I do not think so. The new Deputy Secretary of Defence described the relationship a few days ago as constructive and workable, but went beyond those diplomatic words in adding that a number of detailed issues inevitably remained to be resolved. The point is that partial privatisation is immensely complicated and detailed: the devil is not just in the detail, it is the detail. The problems have not been resolved yet, and the Select Committee report goes to the heart of that.
The Secretary of State and the Minister have an opportunity to respond properly to that report—not in the patronising manner of the response I read the other day—by saying how they will deal with the problems. If JSF fails because of the partial privatisation of DERA, neither the industry nor the country will forgive the Government.
The Secretary of State did not refer to some matters, vital in procurement terms, that go way beyond the big money programmes for frigates, aircraft, missiles and so on. I refer to small things that we rather take for granted, but which affect the daily life of service men and women. These might be said to be silly things, but they are important—soap, lavatory paper, vaccines and accommodation. Who could forget the substandard tent accommodation identified by my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) during deployment in Kosovo in winter? We may forget such problems, but they are just as important as failures on big procurement programmes. They affect soldiers, sailors and airmen. How are such problems being resolved, and how deeply have they bitten? When people decide to leave the forces early, those are the straws that break the camel's back.
Defence exports are important to everyone, particularly the 400,000 people who work in the industry and their dependants, and the hon. Members who represent them. We have heard endlessly about legislation on export controls, but can the Minister tell us what that will mean for industry, when it will come forward, what it will contain and how deeply it will bite on industry's ability to deal with future export possibilities?
No one wants programmes to get into difficulties or produce the wrong equipment. Our defence would suffer from that, which is why procurement is hugely important. By its nature, defence procurement is always fraught with difficulties that do not exist in commercial contracts. We are always quick to point out failings at the Ministry of Defence, with people saying that equipment could be

443
bought commercially. But there are plenty of times when that cannot be done, or when commercial products require more work.
It is inevitable that mistakes will sometimes be made because procurement has been overdone, but we are dealing with equipment likely to be used in some of the worst environments that it is possible to imagine, such as slit trenches half-filled with water, in freezing Arctic conditions or at high altitude in aircraft in combat. Whatever it takes, the Ministry of Defence must deal with equipment that will work in those circumstances. No one would forgive the Ministry for choosing an option that, although cheap, did not work when most needed, as has too often happened.
We expected answers from the Government on many of the issues that I have raised. Instead we heard a statement that should have been made separately on a particular procurement project, then a party political broadcast by the Secretary of State. No doubt that was inserted in his programme by Alastair Campbell, who is fed up because the Secretary of State has not yet done enough party politicking. Perhaps every time the right hon. Gentleman stands up in future, we can expect to hear the usual four and a half yards of political nonsense from the Government, rather than their dealing with the issues and problems. I regret that the Secretary of State took that approach today, but we are running towards an election which Labour will lose. Every dog must have his day, and I am happy to give the Secretary of State the opportunity to play silly political games while I look forward to taking over the problems and dealing with them after the election.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. There is now an opportunity for Back Benchers to have their day. Rather more wish to speak than would be successful in catching my eye if everyone took the full allocation of time available. I therefore appeal for brevity so that those who have been here throughout the debate may have an opportunity to speak.
4.5 pm
Mr. Bruce George: I am not sure whether to feel flattered by the reference by the hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) to my brooding presence. I am not so much brooding as sitting here amused and bemused. One great advantage of having sat for ever on the Select Committee on Defence is that one goes round the houses time and again. Whenever the hon. Gentleman or his colleagues scream "foul" or "foul-up", I can say, "Tories—1981 and 1987."
The hon. Gentleman has at least enough humility occasionally to lapse into fairness, though that owes more to his early career at Jane's—incredibly objective—and in the Army than to his present role. The hon. Gentleman must have seen many foul-ups, and must realise—even if not all his colleagues do—that fouling up in procurement is almost par for the course. One can only hope that smart procurement will minimise the foul-ups, which no Government have, as yet, managed to do.
444
I did not bounce to my feet to ask questions about roll on/roll off ferries. I find it amusing that those who did all the screaming have departed the Chamber, leaving those of us who remain less chance to make our speeches. The incandescence of their rage lasted just the length of a statement. They may read what I have said.
I am delighted that we are debating procurement. The Defence Committee did a good job on the four reports relevant to the debate, and much information with which we may evaluate the Government's performance has arisen from the Committee's deliberations. I was pleased to hear the Government say that the debate on defence procurement would not proceed until the Defence Committee had had a chance to evaluate documentation and produce our report.
In addition to the four reports tagged for this debate—on the OCCAR convention, on the future of DOWRY, on major procurement and on the appointment of the chief scientific adviser—I should like to tag personally yesterday's report on the lessons of Kosovo, which contains a substantial section on procurement. I should also mention the report that we published a few months ago on the Government's annual reporting cycle.
The Government spend nearly £10 billion on procurement and spares, which shows how often we should debate those matters. One of the most delicate phrases that I have ever heard used about Ministry of Defence procurement was in our procurement report which said that its annual deeds record over 20 years had been less than glorious. Far worse could have been said, but we must recognise that any Government who try to develop a smart procurement policy will find no panacea. Anyone who claimed that we could save so many billion pounds after two years—or five or 10—would be a born optimist. So much can blow a Government, and their Ministry of Defence, off course.
I can speak with a degree of detachment because I have opposed my own party's policy for at least as long as I have opposed the Opposition's. The Defence Committee is evil to everyone. We have had much more time in which to hone our skills by attacking the Conservatives, but time will tell on that. In fairness, some good starts have been made, and the hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green mentioned the establishment of the Defence Procurement Agency, smart procurement, public-private partnerships and private finance initiatives. All that is an attempt to change the culture of decision making at the Ministry of Defence and in its weapons procurement process.
The Government have been courageous—it is difficult to be courageous—where they have been prepared to take dramatic decisions: on the cancellation of Horizon, the common new generation frigate, what is now Skynet 5, the medium-range Trigat anti-tank missile, Bowman and perhaps more to come. That was absolutely right. It took the previous Government a long time, understandably, to change their mind and to say that the time had come to dump a programme. The move to AWACS is an example of where decisions must be made.
I must say something about ro-ro ferries. I should love to have, and perhaps the Defence Committee will have,

445
access to the legal advice that the Department was given. In evidence to us under the section entitled "Military Capability", which states:
The RORO service can be used across a full range of missions and military tasks that require deployment of UK forces into theatre through a seaport of disembarkation. It is not the intention to use the service in "battle conditions" but the ships may need to transit warlike zones and maybe under escort as part of a task force.
Perhaps the sailors on them will be Royal Naval reserves. I should love to see whether the Government have taken the right legal advice. So much is at stake. I cannot imagine the French falling for an approach such as this. I hope that this will be closely monitored—not by the Mickey Mouse private investigators captured in Cuba but by serious investigators, to ensure that our competitors are playing by the rules. I hope that we shall have an explanation on that in due course.
The report on Kosovo was published yesterday. It was not an easy report for the Committee to write. I am rabidly pro-NATO. The hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green will know that I wrote three great tomes in the early 1990s which he as marketing manager did not manage to sell. The books were grossly overpriced and undermarketed, but they were very good. I am a devotee of NATO and it was particularly difficult for me to chair a Committee that was so critical of NATO.
I feel strongly that the only way to get improvements is by criticism. If the Government have any reason to dissent from our analysis or if we have made any factual errors, I look forward to their reply in due course. The Committee was absolutely right to say:
Operation Allied Force does, we believe, demand close and careful examination for the lessons it has to teach us about the role of NATO in maintaining security and stability in Europe, and about the types of operation in which it may in the future be involved. NATO's involvement in Kosovo has aroused extensive and sometimes passionate debate, and been the subject of intense scrutiny.
The report continued:
Despite the imbalance in military potency between the Alliance and Milosevic's forces, Operation Allied Force proved to be a more risky venture than many anticipated.
We went on to say why, and that if we embark on such a venture again, we should learn the lessons swiftly and well.
I was a little disappointed with some of the press reports. There was a little too much publicity. We did not criticise the Prime Minister personally. "Grovel, grovel", as Ron Brown said after he was thrown out of the House of Commons. The Prime Minister did not preside over the North Atlantic Council. We pointed out that the need to maintain Alliance unity caused unforced errors. We acknowledged the United Kingdom to be the driving force in maintaining the determination of the Alliance to see the job through to a conclusion. Unfortunately, that enthusiasm was not shared by all our allies.
Wars test not just the resolve and competence of decision makers, and the support of parliamentarians; they test the quality of military personnel and of the equipment that is procured for them. The decisions made today are decisions that our men and women will fight with 20 years from now. One of the problems—here I lapse temporarily into partisanship, but it is necessary to do so—is that many of the procurement decisions that we identify as having been less than successful were inherited from the last Government. If a war is fought 15 years from now, the same criticism can be made by an ageing Member for
446
Chingford and Woodford Green, still awaiting his opportunity and then facing being bypassed as many 65-year-old Opposition Members awaiting their chance are.
To prove my decency I now turn my criticism to an invisible role, next to the very visible Under-Secretary. I am disappointed in the way in which the Royal Air Force performed. I am not talking about the personnel. We revere them, correctly. I take no comfort from the fact that we were the fourth largest supplier of aircraft in the conflict. I would take satisfaction if we had been the second, behind the United States, and not behind France and Italy and just in front of a clutch of other countries. We can do better.
Admittedly, the Tornado and Harrier were good aircraft in their day. They are still useful, but are getting a little venerable. I fear that the poor kit that was procured some time ago did not properly maximise the RAF contribution. We said:
The most serious shortcoming in UK capabilities shown-up by the air campaign was the lack of precision-guided weapons capable of being used in all weathers against static and mobile targets.
When we go through the lack of security and all the errors it is clear that one of the problems was the TIALD integration on the Tornado GR4 upgrade. That was a disaster. It should have been in years ago. The GR4 version was not ready for use in Kosovo. The initial starting date was 1993. Delays now total 63 months. The Government cannot accept more than a modicum of blame for that. There was a lack of GPS-guided munitions in Kosovo. The spending review promised funds, but much of that was not addressed by the last Government. On anti- armour air-to-air surface munitions, Brimstone was 10 years late, so the RAF had to rely on unguided cluster bombs. Brimstone's initial starting date was 1990.
There was a lack of secure air-to-air communications. The Royal Air Force could not speak securely to its American allies. Nothing has been done and nothing announced. Phoenix has been a great success—that is, it was promised in the 1980s, hoped for in the 1990s and at least in this millennium we have seen this drone operational.
There was insufficient sealift. Throughout the 1980s and 1990s the Defence Committee produced reports complaining about the collapse of the Merchant Marines. There was insufficient airlift. The Government put a lot of faith in the C-130J. It was not their fault; the last Government were still awaiting delivery. The SA80 was not all the Government's fault; it was the fault of the last Government. The Horizon was not this Government's fault. They cancelled it. The Government took a good decision over the BVRAAM and I applaud them for their choice. So when we look at procurement failures, let us be reasonably fair.
In the conclusion of our Kosovo report we said:
Overall, despite the heroic efforts of UK aircrew and support staff, we must conclude that the UK contribution to the air campaign, in terms of actual fire power rather than support, was somewhat disappointing.
That was hardly a devastating criticism, but the contribution was unsatisfactory and no blame attaches to the personnel.
Our NATO partners have little to be pleased about, except the United States. The defence capability initiative may improve matters. The OCCAR treaty may

447
improve matters. I hope that the treaty was signed on collaboration in the European defence industry. That might help. The Helsinki headline goals may help, but spending by our European partners is pretty miserly and they need to do far more, if the Europeans are to be taken seriously as partners to the United States.
It is important that BAE Systems survives in an increasingly competitive world. Recently, I learned that the entire value of the United States aircraft and aerospace industry is only 17 per cent. of the value of Bill Gates and Microsoft. That is a sign of the problems the US industry is facing.
I want better co-operation in Europe. I am an atlanticist, politically—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry that there is no additional time for the Chairman of the Select Committee.
4.20 pm
Mr. Paul Keetch: I shall not detain the House for an hour as the previous Front-Bench speakers have done.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Dr. Lewis Moonie): The hon. Gentleman is only entitled to a quarter of an hour.
Mr. Keetch: I must correct the Minister. The Liberal Democrat spokesman is entitled to an hour, but I have given my commitment to the Deputy Speaker and to the Whips that I shall not be using the full hour—not least because I want to ensure that my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey) and Back Benchers from other parties have the opportunity to speak.
In a thorough—if slightly long—speech, the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) paid tribute to Sir Robert Walmsley, as do I. However, the hon. Gentleman rightly criticised the contribution made by the Secretary of State at the start of the debate. The hon. Gentleman pointed out that the right hon. Gentleman's speech was a mixture of a statement and a party political broadcast. Furthermore, I am surprised that the Secretary of State could not find the time to remain in the Chamber—to listen not, perhaps, to me, but to the important contribution made by the Chairman of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George).
Mr. Duncan Smith: The Secretary of State was just passing through.
Mr. Keetch: Indeed.
In relation to the ro-ro order, I hope that the Under-Secretary—who is in the Chamber—will answer the specific points that were raised. First, my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett) asked whether details of the successful bids would be placed in the Library. May we have a simple yes or no answer to that question about the landing ships?
Dr. Moonie: The matter is confidential—as has always been the case.
Mr. Keetch: We have a "No" to the first question. Let us see how we get on with the others.
Mr. Burnett: Does my hon. Friend agree that we are discussing the spending of public money for which the
448

Government must be accountable and that the way to bring them to account is to determine whether, by their own definition, they have achieved value for money?
Mr. Keetch: I agree with my hon. Friend. Some of the orders for those ships were placed overseas and I think that the Chairman of the Select Committee shares the concerns expressed by Conservative and Liberal Democrat Members that that is wrong. We should have more information than the Government may be prepared to give.
My second point relates to the Clyde. Can the floating dock order be brought forward to save jobs there?
Thirdly, if it is true, as was suggested by the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), that the Secretary of State's decisions about these orders—albeit not his actual words—were broadcast on the BBC website before he made his statement to the House, the right hon. Gentleman should return to the House this evening and apologise.
We should never debate defence without stating our belief that the men and women of the British armed forces are among the finest in the world. In all manner of places throughout the world, it has been proved time and again that, when military action must be taken to resolve conflict or to enforce peace, the UK is more than capable of taking the lead and setting the example. This year, that has been proved yet again by Operation Palliser in Sierra Leone.
The quality of our armed forces enables the UK to fulfil our commitments to protect, enforce and promote the rules of the international society to which we subscribe. The best procurements we make for our armed forces are the men and women who serve in them.
We shall be holding another defence debate next week. These defence debates are rather like buses—there are none for months and then two come along at once.
A delicate balance is involved in controlling expenditure on defence procurement. We must ensure that Britain's armed forces are equipped to meet the nation's defence obligations both in peacetime and during conflict. Our armed forces need to be prepared to act alongside our allies in extremely hazardous environments as part of collective defence and security operations. They must have the means successfully to participate in peacekeeping activities anywhere in the world. If they are not sufficiently equipped, the UK's ability to project power—to protect, enforce and promote democracy—will be seriously undermined. As a nation, we will not be living up to the responsibilities brought by a permanent seat on the Security Council of the United Nations.
Defence procurement is about how the Government can best prepare those who serve in our armed forces for the extremely difficult jobs that we sometimes ask them to do. It is also about getting best value for the taxpayer. How can we judge correctly the relationship between quality, speed of delivery and value? Under the previous Government—as we have already heard—projects such as the Bowman system dragged on for a decade, and misjudgments were made time and again. As the shadow Secretary of State rightly pointed out, the Bowman contract should have been dealt with sooner. It is possible to acquire affordable equipment, deliver it quickly and still ensure the highest quality. We should look to our allies, because they have often performed better than us in that regard.

449
Affordable quality equipment does not have to take decades to arrive. Speed, quality and value can coexist; it is the job of Government to ensure that they do so. With that in mind, we welcome the goals underlying the Government's smart procurement initiative. Any initiative that ensures faster, cheaper and better procurement should be welcomed.
However, if smart procurement is to be more than just another soundbite, it needs to be testable. The report of the Select Committee stated that there were early signs of improvement; perhaps they are the "green shoots of recovery"—perhaps not. The Committee also concluded that there is a long way to go. Costs and delays continue to escalate. The average in-service date delay has risen from 43 months in 1998 to 47 months in 1999. As for making procurement cheaper, 13 projects have exceeded their original cost approvals, and cost overruns have increased by £22 million since 1998.
This week, the Minister announced in a written answer that smart procurement will save us £2 billion over the 10 years between 1998 and 2008. How does he know? In the light of the figures and of the worsening performance trends, will the Minister share with us the brand of fiscal mathematics that makes such savings possible, let alone likely?
Surely, if procurement is becoming slower and increasingly expensive, that does not add up to smart procurement. Where are the green shoots? How do the Government measure the success of smart procurement? By which criteria do they claim—as the Secretary of State did this afternoon—that it will save £2 billion? Parliament should be told. Smart procurement needs smart government, and until the Government publish the criteria by which they assess those figures, it is nothing more than a soundbite.
I do not doubt the height of the mountain that the Government have to climb. There have been decades of mismanagement—as Members on both sides of the House must accept. For example, in 1968, the Downey report recommended that 15 per cent. of development spending should be disbursed before full development began. It is obvious that the costs of the whole project, and not just the early costs, should be taken into account when making design decisions. In 1987, a Ministry of Defence working party recommended the implementation of the Downey report. However, the Conservative Government did not fully implement it.
On the Challenger 2 project, Vickers came in 30 months behind schedule and was fined a measly £3 million—only 0.13 per cent. of the contract. As a result, the MOD incurred costs of £39 million, plus the lack of operational capability. Why were those costs not pursued? Why were much larger penalties not imposed?
Furthermore, in 1994, options for a follow-on buy were taken up before the tanks had demonstrated their reliability. In 1995, it was then found that they were not reliable and it required two more years of work to bring them up to standard.
On the contracts that are the responsibility of the Labour Government, the expeditionary strategy, outlined in the strategic defence review, relies on the introduction of two new aircraft carriers to replace the ageing Invincible class. For Britain to have a key role in ensuring international peace and security in the future, it is essential to increase our capacity to deploy. The carriers are vital
450
for that. Each carrier is capable of accommodating up to 50 fixed-wing aircraft, and will give a tremendous boost to the extent to which the UK can operate worldwide either as part of a coalition or independently.
Let us examine those aircraft, as any aircraft carrier is only as good as the aircraft that it carries. There are possibly half a dozen aircraft which we could choose to go on the new carriers, including the joint strike fighter, the F18, a version of Eurofighter and perhaps an advanced version of Harrier. Considering the downward spiral in the Government's performance in meeting procurement deadlines, it is a rather unnerving thought that, if the aircraft chosen is not developed in time, the whole carrier project could be in doubt.
The chief of defence procurement has identified 2005 as the deadline for the decision on the carrier-borne aircraft. However, considering the current state of procurement, if an aircraft is chosen by that time, can we really be confident that it will be delivered to coincide with the carriers? We should not forget that 15 of the 25 on-going projects, or 60 per cent. of all procurement programmes, are at least three years overdue. It is therefore possible that future carriers, perhaps designed with joint strike fighters, will face overruns, which means that the carriers will stand idly by with no aircraft to use. Even worse, we may have to redesign the carriers to operate a different type of aircraft. I hope that we never have to answer those questions in a future debate.
I hope that the type 45 destroyer will succeed. With the principal anti-air-missile system, the type 45 will provide defence at sea against anti-ship missiles, and support for troops on the ground. Most importantly, the proposed capability of the type 45 to accommodate vertical launchers that could carry cruise and Tomahawk missiles would provide the fleet with a weapons capacity that would do a great deal to equip the UK to meet the challenges of the future. As I said when intervening on the hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green, given the demise of the submarine-launch Tomahawk fleet, I hope that the type 45s will have the capacity to carry that missile.
Recent evidence suggests that all is not well with the type 45 contracts. Vosper Thornycroft is threatening to make 650 workers redundant and withdraw from large-scale warship building in the UK as a result of confusion over the workshare agreement. Will the Minister assure the House that the workshare agreement set out in the alliance heads of agreement remains the basis of contractual negotiations? Will he also assure the House that there will be fair and equal allocation of work between the prime contractors and other partners and subsidiaries?
What is worse than the uncertain regime of smart procurement is procurement delivered against no regime whatever. The Defence Procurement Agency will shortly place an order for a theatrewide area communications network system, which is a sophisticated and essential development to meet the future needs of our Army. On 10 October, I wrote to the Secretary of State for Defence, asking several questions about that project, but he has not yet seen fit to reply. I shall therefore explain the position to the Minister. The provisions of the system have been subject to competition and tender through the DPA's

451
electronics department. Currently, two major organisations, Racal Avionics and Cogent Defence Systems, are in the frame to supply the system.
Dr. Moonie: The hon. Gentleman is wrong.
Mr. Keetch: If I am wrong, as the Minister says, I am happy to give way to him. Perhaps he will explain why the Secretary of State has not had the courtesy to reply to my letter of two weeks ago to explain why I am wrong.
Mr. Burnett: My hon. Friend has given a cogent list of delays. Is he going to get on to the matter of delays in the construction of landing platform docks?
Mr. Keetch: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, but to ensure that other Members have an opportunity to contribute to our debate, I cannot cover the whole range of delays.
I want to return to the important system that I was discussing which will be carried in the rear of a fleet of military cargo vehicles. It appears that the DPA has released the purchasing authority for the provision of the new vehicles, and that contract is worth some £8 million to the companies supplying the electronic hardware. In other words, we are tendering on the hardware, but not the vehicles that will carry it. It has emerged that both possible contractors want to use the same vehicle, the Duro, which is manufactured in a country that is not in the European Union, not in NATO and not even in the United Nations. I am referring to the Swiss company, Bucher-Guyer.
The development of the vehicle was subsidised by the Swiss Government and it is not in service with any other army. Are we going to buy a piece of equipment that will be carried in Swiss trucks, not UK-manufactured vehicles? Why was no UK, NATO or EU supplier asked to tender for the vehicle and why did the Government choose it? Was there any tender competition at all? The British Army has a system generally described as the green fleet, which means that every vehicle must undergo arduous programmes of development and trial. There is benchmarking for reliability in battlefield situations, and the trials cost millions of pounds and can take several years. All the vehicles are fully supported with logistics and spares, are part of an integrated fleet and can be maintained effectively at a level of operational readiness. Vehicles produced by British companies, such as Land Rover, Leyland Daf, Alvis and others, could fulfil the role for which the Duro vehicle is being purchased.
How can the Government justify a potential requirement to support a new, unknown vehicle that is untested, untried and unproven for service in the British Army green fleet and which will be entrusted to carry one of the Army's most important communications? I am compelled to ask that, if has not already done so, the Secretary of State undertake a full and thorough investigation into why that vehicle will be purchased by the British Army, as we do not regard that as smart procurement.
We must ensure that our procurement strategy provides the very best for our armed forces. As far as implementing procurement strategy that is fit for the 21st century is
452
concerned, we believe that smart procurement is a step in the right direction, but a substantial improvement must be made if it is to mean anything at all. Procurement is not getting faster or cheaper and, regarding the standard of delivery and equipment, it is not getting better.
Mr. Robert Key: The hon. Gentleman has made some important points. One problem is that we look at all those programmes, but not at the philosophy of the procurement or acquisition itself. Does the hon. Gentleman think that there is any reason why contractors who make things that go on platforms, but not the platforms themselves, should not be prime contractors? That is an important matter. What does the hon. Gentleman think about partnering as a means of procurement that can exclude competition?
Mr. Keetch: I want to ensure that our armed forces have the best equipment. Indeed, some things that have been suggested today may bring that about, as long as they can be seen to provide what they are meant to do. My concern, especially about Duro, is that we are likely to purchase a vehicle that no one else has apart from the Swiss. It was developed with Swiss Government money and there was no way that Land Rover or anyone else could get involved in tendering. Clearly, that should not be the case.
Mr. Burnett: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Keetch: Yes, for the last time.
Mr. Burnett: Does my hon. Friend agree that the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) made a very good point? Direct contracts save money because main contractors will invariably take something out of a sub-contract. Furthermore, and importantly, the degree of monitoring that the main contractor performs on the subcontractor's work is incredibly inefficient and expensive.
Mr. Keetch: As always, my hon. Friend makes an important contribution.
We must make sure that the British armed forces are provided with resources to retain their excellent reputation for serving the interests of the UK and the international community of which we are part. It is now up to the-Government to fulfil their part of the bargain and serve the interests of those who work in the armed forces by ensuring that faster, cheaper and better procurement translates from soundbite into positive action. I have asked specific questions tonight, and I had hoped that the Secretary of State would be here to hear them. As he is not, I look forward to the eventual reply of the Under-Secretary.
4.39 pm
Mr. Alan Campbell: I hoped to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to raise some issues about naval procurement, but I now have the opportunity to respond to what the Secretary of State said earlier. I speak as someone who has a constituency interest in the defence and maritime industries, but also as the chair of the north-east maritime and offshore cluster—a role for which I receive no remuneration.

453
I welcome the decision to place the alternative landing ships logistic order with Swan Hunter on Tyneside. It is excellent news for the north-east and a huge boost not only for the river but for the whole region. It is a tribute to the hard work and investment of the owner of Swan Hunter, the management, and of the work force. It is also just reward for the efforts made across the community in the north-east by employers, employees and trade unions—especially the General, Municipal, Boilermakers and Allied Trades Union and the Amalgamated Engineering and Electrical Union—and political representatives from the region, who have campaigned so hard for the orders. I am delighted with the way in which the Government have responded to those calls.
Mr. Burnett: I do not want to be churlish, but when was the last time that Swan Hunter built a warship?
Mr. Campbell: In the early 1990s. The failure of the previous Government to put work into Swan Hunter and Tyneside led to the collapse of Swan Hunter. It is only due to the faith of the new owner and his investment that Swan Hunter is the success that it is today.
The decision on landing ships, which I welcome, is about value for money. It is in the interests of taxpayers, as it should be, but it is also an act of faith in the north-east by this Labour Government. I say in response to the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett) that it is an act of faith in the north-east which stands in direct contrast to the active betrayal of Swan Hunter by the Conservative Government.
I see that the shadow Defence Secretary is no longer in his place. He stumbled today in remembering the name of Swan Hunter. He really should not have done so because he was a member of the House when his Government were responsible for killing off Swan Hunter in the first place. Now it falls to the Labour Government to bring military orders back to that yard. However, even as we do so, there is a question mark over future orders because we do not know the effect of the £16 billion of cuts that would be made by—let us hope that it does not happen—a future Conservative Government. Until the Conservatives start to put some figures into the public domain, there must be question marks against such orders.
We are constantly told that the Government will be judged not by their words but by their actions. That is why the ALSL announcement is important. It begins the process of reinvesting in defence shipbuilding on Tyneside after decades of under-investment by the previous Government. It brings the very real prospect that a warship will be built again on Tyneside. That is not merely an economic boost for the region; it is a psychological boost. I welcome it.
I have said from the outset that the work on the roll on/roll off ferries should be done in British yards, and I stand by that today, so I can welcome only in part the announcement today. But if we are honest we will admit that the route chosen for the procurement of the vessels meant that it was likely that, if the decision had been made earlier this year, which could have happened, all the work would have gone abroad. We should reflect on that and on the jobs that will be created at Harland and Wolff. It was a difficult decision for the Government, and I know for a fact that the Secretary of State and the Minister for Defence Procurement have done a great deal within the rules to keep the work in British yards.
454
I am all in favour of looking at new ways of procuring vessels and equipment. After all, we are defenders not only of the nation but of the interests of the taxpayer. When the procurement process begins, the designation of vessels is crucial. It cannot be too difficult to ensure that Ministry of Defence ships, including ferries, are designated as warships. We know that it happens in other countries. By doing so, we could avoid many of the problems that we have faced.
Ministry of Defence orders are an important part of the future of shipbuilding in the north-east. They are a valuable way of boosting public spending in the region and creating employment both directly and indirectly. They are also a way of ensuring quality and value for money, not only for taxpayers but for service personnel. However, MOD orders cannot be a cushion to protect British yards from facing up to some hard questions about competition with Europe. I accept that there is a case for looking at hidden subsidies for overseas yards and I am sure that the MOD takes it seriously, but surely subsidies cannot account for the differences in competitiveness between some of the yards in Europe and some of our yards.
We shall be competitive only if we are given the opportunity to compete for quality orders. Only with continuity of orders can we move towards economies of scale. The Government are committed to building about 30 warships in the next 15 to 20 years. It is important that, where possible, orders are brought forward to create a firmer and more secure context for investment and continuity of employment, especially for apprentices.
I welcome the award of the contracts to Swan Hunter. We are making progress in the region. Companies and agencies are working together increasingly in the way that I called for in a debate on 4 April. The clusters that are operating on the Tyne are the way forward, as is greater co-operation between yards to maximise for the whole of the United Kingdom the benefits of the orders that we receive. We also need a Government who are committed, as this Government are, to backing our efforts.
I extend to the Secretary of State an invitation to visit Tyneside in the near future to see the excellent work that we are doing. There is a long way to go to secure shipbuilding and ship repair on Tyneside, but the award of the contracts today is a welcome boost for that process, and I am grateful for it.
4.47 pm
Mr. Peter Viggers: The hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Campbell) spoke up for his constituency and constituency interests—quite right, too, and well spoken, if I may say so. We all speak for our constituency interests. I have on occasions spoken up for my constituency company, Basys Technology, which operates in defence procurement and for another local firm, Vosper Thornycroft. However, on this occasion, I want to look at defence procurement on a top-down rather than bottom-up basis.
Defence procurement is an important issue—an issue of life or death for the soldier, sailor or airman, or even for a nation. It is one of the oldest issues that nations have had to face. It goes back to the creation of gunpowder and right through to the creation of nuclear weapons. It goes right back to the time of the Trojan horse and through to the Enigma code breaker. It is a crucial issue. It is vital

455
that we should give our forces a military edge. After 50 years of tranquillity in Great Britain, it is important that we should not relax. I point out that that is 50 years of tranquillity in Great Britain, not the United Kingdom, because Northern Ireland has been disrupted by violence in that period.
I believe that the Ministry of Defence is working on the basis that there will be no war without three years' warning. That did not apply in the case of Kosovo. We were within a few days of mobilising reserves and going into what might have been an extremely bloody ground campaign. It is crucial that we should lift our eyes above parochial and constituency issues and ensure that we give our troops what it is our duty to give them—the best possible equipment.
There are enormous complications in defence procurement. First, there is the size of the budgets. We are dealing with numbers that have so many noughts on the end that it is difficult for many people to contemplate the size of the budgets.
Then there is the complexity of the issues. To put it most simply, a naval gun costs only a fraction of the through-life cost of the programme. The shells used by that gun will cost much more than the gun itself. We have to concentrate on through-life costs rather than on initial procurement costs.
Another complicating factor is multinationality, and that applies whether we are co-operating with the United States or with our European allies. It is an extra political complication. I welcome the six-nation framework that was signed in July 1998, a letter of intent that was intended to bring six nations together to co-operate more closely and to harmonise their defence procurement.
The final point of complication is the transience of Ministers, decision makers and armed forces personnel. Armed forces personnel are experts in their own field, but they serve in a particular posting in Whitehall to deal with a defence procurement matter for probably two and a half years or so. None of the five Defence Ministers has any defence experience and only one of them has been in post since May 1997. All the rest are transients and have had to try to pick up the threads of enormously complicated issues in a comparatively short time. My message is that we should try to keep defence procurement simple, clear and honest.
Delay is an enemy and the best is the enemy of the good. The people involved in defence procurement try to put extra knobs, whistles and bells on different equipment. They find it difficult to do what the manufacturers of television sets, radios or other mass-produced items have to do, which is to freeze a design and produce a large number. There is a tendency among Ministry of Defence planners to keep evolving the design, which means that it becomes more complicated and expensive. That results in delay after delay.
Why do we need to he concerned about defence procurement? In the NATO Parliamentary Assembly and at other international gatherings where people discuss defence, a series of numbers has become accepted—100, 60 and 15. If the United States puts in 100 per cent. of the effort, all the European NATO countries combined put in 60 per cent. of the effort. However, the European countries receive only 15 per cent. of the benefit from
456
that effort. In other words, all that the European continental NATO allies receive is 15 per cent. of the effect of the United States defence procurement budget—15 per cent. of the bangs for your bucks that the Americans get. That is a deeply serious issue, not only because of the imbalance that is created, but because of the nature of American society. It is disturbing that only about 8 per cent. of United States citizens have passports and have ever travelled abroad. I understand that George W. Bush has travelled abroad only three times, despite the fact that his father was ambassador to China and to the United Nations and later the head of the Central Intelligence Agency. However, that is better than Ronald Reagan who had travelled abroad only once before he was elected President, and that was to Taiwan. The United States is a very insular country. Mentions of foreign policy issues are very rare in the Gore-Bush election debates. It is only after an individual is elected President that he starts to take an interest in foreign affairs.
We in this country are used to the standard schoolroom projection of the world—the Mercator projection with the United Kingdom in the middle and the other countries spread out on both sides. In the United States, north and south America are in the middle of the map, and we must remember that a third of the population of the United States—those in California and on the west coast—look to the west. They do not necessarily look to Europe primarily; they look west to Japan, China, Korea, Indonesia and the Philippines. The United States has been an amazingly staunch ally and I pay it tribute for that. No one could be a finer ally of Europe. However, it would be a mistake to continue to take that fact for granted. We must put more effort into defence procurement and ensure that European defences are stronger, and we must do that without in any way weakening NATO.
A further contributory strand in such thinking about the United States is that it would be a mistake to imagine that the most powerful country in the world will sit by supinely and watch the actions of rogue states—or, to be more accurate, rogue Governments—in countries such as Iran, Iraq, Libya and North Korea without seeking to deploy national missile defence. The planned earliest date for that deployment is 2005, and we will delude ourselves if we think that the Americans will not plan to deploy it. That will inevitably dislocate and disturb the equanimity of NATO. Stresses and strains will occur, and that is another reason to set up a European rapid intervention force and have a European security and defence identity. However, we must create them without disturbing the strong links within NATO.
NATO is expanding. We must ensure that those countries that join NATO have the opportunity to equip themselves consistently with our equipment. We should not forget that, as NATO expands, the sphere of influence of the former Soviet Union will necessarily diminish. Russia and its allies had a huge military-industrial combine and the production of military equipment was an important part of the Russian economy. If Russia sees NATO expanding, it will effectively take markets away from the Russian military-industrial combine. We should be broadminded enough not to rule out the possibility that, one day, we will procure defence equipment from former Soviet Union countries in exactly the same way as we are contemplating the purchase of defence equipment from

457
Israel and South Africa. We should bear such issues in mind when we consider our defence procurement budgets.
On the scrutiny of defence procurement, there is an informed body of opinion among academics. The outstanding Royal United Services Institute is based just down the road from the House, but I want to pay tribute to the work of the Select Committee on Defence, of which I am a member. I admit that, when I began to serve on the Committee, I was a former Minister and thought that it and the other Select Committees were a boil on the backside of the world. I did not understand their relevance. It has taken me a long time to realise how valuable a Select Committee can be.
Select Committees can call witnesses before them and ask for expert papers. They have superb advisers and they can ask informed questions. They can also ask dumb questions, which are sometimes more helpful than the well-informed ones. The reports of the Select Committee on Defence are the most authoritative source of information on a range of defence issues. I pay tribute to the Chairman of the Committee, the hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George)—I almost called him my hon. Friend—and the Committee's other members for the valuable work that they do.
As with other procurement issues on which we have joined the United States or purchased equipment directly from the United States, it is remarkable how trouble free the nuclear deterrent issue has been. We need air superiority in high-intensity fighting capacity and I am a known unenthusiast for the Typhoon Eurofighter, which has a range of only 1,400 km compared with the range of more than 4,000 km of the Boeing 15E and the Sukhoi 35. The aerial dexterity of the Sukhoi and Mig aircraft is notable at air shows and makes the Typhoon look pretty pedestrian and lumbering. However, its electronics are extremely good, so it is a good aircraft.
Mr. Michael Jack: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Viggers: I am sorry, but I cannot. My speech is subject to a strict time limit, so I hope that my right hon. Friend will allow me to continue. I am watching the clock with care.
I am convinced that the decision to scrap the Mauser cannon in the Eurofighter is wrong. I speak as a former Royal Air Force pilot and as the commander of a guided missile squadron in the Territorial Army. I have spoken to many people in the Air Force about the Government's decision to scrap the Mauser cannon after the first 55 batch of Typhoons. It is interesting that every single pilot below the rank of group captain to whom I have spoken—I have spoken to many—said that it was madness to scrap the gun. Every single officer above the rank of group captain to whom I have spoken sucked their lips, thought for a moment, remembered their staff and defence college courses and loyalty to the body public, and said, "There are very powerful arguments for doing so."
We are told that the reasons why the gun was scrapped were nothing to do with money and that it was just not needed. In that case, why do the Rafale and Gripen fighters and all other Eurofighters procured by our allies—even, for goodness' sake, the F22 American
458
stealth fighter—have cannons? Why have we decided that we do not need them? I have asked those who were involved in events in Sierra Leone whether it would have been helpful to have been able to fly a noisy aeroplane over the country and perhaps fire away a few rounds from a cannon. They said that that would have been absolutely invaluable. I am convinced that the decision is a mistake.
Moving to ship orders, I say in passing that when I saw the Secretary of State for Defence preening himself at the Dispatch Box, describing his wonderful plans for maritime purchase, I recalled that this Government have ordered no warships at all since May 1997. The problem is that, as in so many other areas, the Government are all mouth and no performance. We are at risk of encountering the same problem with heavy airlift capacity, as there might be difficulty nailing down the British part of the purchase of 25 A400M aircraft.
I think that I have time to touch on one other point. I see that the Under-Secretary of State for Defence is in his place. He wrote to me this week to say that 9,144 men in the Army are medically downgraded, and have been so for more than four weeks. That is almost 10 per cent. of the Army, and I find it incredible. The hon. Gentleman knows why that is so. It is because he is closing the only military hospital, which is in my constituency. The move to Birmingham will not work and, until he confirms that the Haslar hospital will continue as a defence medical services hospital also serving the civilian population, he will not have the strength of doctors, nurses and other staff that is needed in such services.
The way not to handle defence procurement is that displayed by Baroness Symons. She wrote about the Bowman programme—a programme in complete collapse—on 25 July:
I am writing to inform you of a major step forward on the Bowman communications programme
and then she scrapped it. That is exactly the reverse of what I think we should be doing. We need honesty and openness in defence procurement.
5.2 pm
Laura Moffatt: I, too, will attempt to be brief. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers), who had some interesting insights into defence issues.
It is easy to realise from the feelings expressed earlier on the Floor of the House how incredibly important equipment issues have become to us, not only for the sake of our constituents but because we so desperately want to ensure that our very best resource—people in the Armed Forces—is given the very best equipment at the best price. That is why we become so animated when such issues are raised. We as Members of Parliament, and especially the Government, shoulder a huge responsibility to ensure that we get such issues right. It is very important that we secure modern, usable equipment that suits our armed forces.
My first word of warning to everybody in the defence industry and the armed forces who might be listening to the debate is that when they are promised great cuts in taxation at the election, they should think very carefully which Government will truly be interested in ensuring that our armed forces are properly equipped. Defence cuts are such an easy hit when times become hard, which I suspect they would for any future Government.

459
It is important that we think about the procurements of the past and remember that there have been some enormous mistakes. I shall not cite a huge list; that would be a silly waste of time. We have heard hon. Members eloquently pointing out how important some procurement is to their constituents. I should like to relay to the House my experience and why I believe it is so important that we get procurement right.
Getting procurement right is particularly important to those in Kosovo and Macedonia. Being with the men and women on the ground who are doing the job on our behalf made me realise that their having to use a mobile phone during their working hours because we do not provide them with a proper radio station is wrong, and should not be part of our requirement. I hope that we can now see a way forward, especially given the very painful experience of re-tendering for the Bowman programme. Re-tendering was right—and I say that even though one company in my constituency was heavily involved in it. It was right to think about the future of that project.
I suspect that my next point will preclude my receiving an invitation to go to Washington with the Defence Committee. Our men and women serving on the ground with other forces throughout the world say readily and happily that the Americans have all the gear and no idea. That is no excuse for us not to ensure that our forces have proper equipment. It is important in these debates to remember not just the people on the front line but those in everyday jobs.
On a recent Select Committee visit to the Falkland Islands, we were transported in a very out-of-date Tristar aircraft that regularly breaks down and disappoints those in the armed forces who are waiting to get home after six months away from their families. That is an example of an incredibly expensive and daft way in which to procure travel. I sincerely hope that the Government will consider that issue. It may not be the sexy front-line stuff about which everyone has talked today, but it is very important to our armed forces that we move them around the country and the world properly, efficiently and cost-effectively.
I have some major concerns about delivery. To return to the Bowman issue, we must ensure that once we have started, we deliver on time. I understand that we have brought the project back into line, but I want to ensure that the in-service date of 2003–04 is secure and that our armed forces can rely on us to deliver exactly what they need when they need it.
Everybody wants to extol the virtues of parts of the defence industry on their own patch. I shall take a slightly different view and speak about the value of defence jobs in the United Kingdom. I have the great good fortune to live in Crawley, and Gatwick airport is within my constituency. Jobs in the area are largely directed towards the service industries. Without the defence industries in my town, there would be few jobs to entice university graduates back into the town to work on sophisticated communications systems. When we discuss procurement, we should remember how important such jobs are to our constituencies.
The European defence industry is undergoing enormous change. I believe that it is change for the better. We on the Defence Committee are watching matters closely and looking into the way in which we do business. A fine
460
example of that was the quadripartite meetings of Select Committees, which together examined defence exports. That was a huge success and resulted in an excellent report.
The Government have done a superb job of ensuring that we know where exports are going. We could do more and produce more detailed reports. We have made a good start and should move towards greater transparency about the end users of the United Kingdom's defence exports. We are leading by example.
The use of new technologies in defence procurement delivers another agenda that is extremely important to the Government—equal opportunities. I see my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George), the Chairman of the Defence Committee, looking at me as if to say, "You managed to get that in again!" New, lighter technologies allow men and women to serve equally in all roles in our armed forces. Women do not want to be given an advantage, but lighter materials and lighter equipment provide a level playing field, and neither men nor women will have to carry heavy packs in future.
The systems are in place for us to move forward, and money is being made available for our armed forces. People should know that the Government are committed to the armed forces and will continue to support them, and the Defence Committee will continue to watch the Government with a keen eye.
5.11 pm
Mr. Michael Jack: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this important debate. I congratulate the hon. Member for Crawley (Laura Moffatt) on her emphasis on people in the defence industry. As a constituency Member of Parliament, I represent the interests of those who work at BAE Systems at Warton—some 6,000 people. They are part of the military aircraft division, which employs almost 13,000 people, who provide a vital backbone to Lancashire's economy.
There are 40,000 people in the north-west of England who rely on the aerospace industry, whose well-being depends largely on military orders, although of course civil orders are important as well. I mention those figures to put into context the number of people who are reliant on our success in that industry.
I have referred to large numbers of people, but I pay tribute to one person whom I used to follow in such debates: our former colleague Michael Colvin, the Member for Romsey. In a way, I feel his presence on the Bench in front of me, from which he used to make extremely knowledgeable contributions to defence debates. I am sorry that he is not present, but I hope that hon. Members will appreciate that, as far as I am concerned, he is here in spirit. The clarity of his contributions will not be forgotten.
The elements of strong defence are, I believe, a clear strategy, excellent people, the best kit and a budget to match. Those are the benchmarks by which one judges the success or otherwise of a procurement exercise. Clear strategy is, perhaps, a subject for debate next week, but if there is one element of the strategic demands on our forces which has become abundantly clear in recent times, it is the need for flexibility.
That has been acknowledged in references to the A400M. I am delighted that the Government have come to a conclusion on that. It was a difficult issue, but the

461
right decision has been made. Similarly, the Government made the right decision on the Meteor missile system. It is right that from the Opposition Benches we say thank you when good decisions have been made. We all recognise the need for quality air power and the importance of flexibility.
Future major procurement projects, whether transatlantic or within Europe, will succeed only through co-operation. That is a challenge, because it entails not just resolving some of the difficult political debates, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) alluded in his remarks from the Front Bench, but recognising one of the fundamental changes that is now occurring in the world of defence—the change in the industrial mix.
The United Kingdom is ideally placed for that. BAE Systems, with the takeover of Marconi and the Sanders division of Lockheed Martin, now has a major footprint in the United States and on this side of the Atlantic. The alliances and strategies, and companies working together, are a key ingredient of our future success in defence.
The debate is taking place because both sides of the House expressed concern that once again BAE Systems had had to reduce the number of people whom it employed. Thankfully, the reduction was implemented by natural wastage but, sadly, there are now fewer employees. Rationalisation was taking place in the organisation of the defence industry, and that was recognised. There was a quest for efficiency by that means to re-equip the company with the right skills and the right people for the future. The company recognised the demands that were to be made of it.
One of the issues that the work force find difficult to reconcile is that they know that a company has a £35 billion order book and ask, "Why is the company dispensing with our services?" Against that background, are the Government minded to acknowledge the importance of sustaining work and the importance to the north-west of England of the aerospace industry?
I understand that the Minister has many questions to answer, but perhaps in future the Secretary of State could try in a speech to put into context, for the benefit of the work force, how his Department sees the industrial backbone of the defence industry in the north-west. Does it understand why we become excited about big projects? We all know that they represent a great deal of work for our constituents. That is why we become excited. We should be excited because we are talking about the best kit for our armed forces. That guides our thinking.
If we are honest, we are looking after our constituents' interests and the numbers of jobs that big projects represent. Some words of comfort from the Government on that score would be extremely reassuring to the many hundreds of thousands of people who are somewhat confused because they are personally affected by the changed nature of the way in which large multinational companies operate, both in Europe and across the north Atlantic.
We shall see co-operation in future, perhaps because of the factors that underlie some of the projects that are now in the pipeline. The Eurofighter Typhoon has been mentioned. Co-operation with our partners is important, and so is the second strand in UK defence policy. We need strong UK-based companies for a key strategic reason.
462
In the Gulf conflict, no Tornado or Jaguar would have flown properly equipped if short-term modifications could not have been made to those aircraft. Whether we talk of ships, aircraft or land-based equipment, we must sustain our industrial base. If we do not, and if the chips are down and there is a real conflict, we shall not be able to modify our equipment to cope with strategic demands. That will not be possible if we do not have skilled design teams and skilled manufacturers, down to the humble fitter. Again, I seek some comfort from the Government Front Bench. I hope that the view that I have outlined is in the Government's mind when they make strategic decisions.
Much has been made of so-called smart procurement. I think that it is now called acquisitive procurement. I read an interesting article in a magazine published by the Royal United Services Institute, which was written by Michael Bell. He poses some interesting questions, which are a challenge to us for the future. His first and key point is to draw our attention to the fact that in procurement terms there are few big projects, and there is an incredible amount of competition for them. There is tremendous commercial risk attached to bidding to get them—and to the risk that the company will not get them.
In that scenario, Michael Bell questioned whether a winner-takes-all approach is the best way to run procurement projects. Even within the context of smart procurement, competition still underpins the way in which decisions are made.
Mr. Bell writes:
companies are prepared to take more risk than is prudent because the alternative of losing is so dire.
In the same article, Sir Robert Walmsley, chief executive of the Defence Procurement Agency, is quoted. His agency was invited to comment on the delays in the maritime patrol aircraft programme, and he says:
It has taught me a lesson about competitions that are regarded as "must wins", i.e. the company decides they just have to win and perhaps you get into a position where they almost want it too much because the consequences of the contract getting into trouble several years downstream, ghastly as they are, are far less ghastly than not getting the contract and wondering what you are going to do tomorrow.
Now is not the time for a detailed discussion of Nimrod, but we should heed those wise words and think again about our procurement philosophy.
Michael Bell raises another valid point when he says of smart procurement:
It wholly failed to address the points about the influence of competition policy on procurement failures presented by industry to the strategic defence review.
Industry will embrace smart procurement because working together makes sense, but I have drawn attention to some small cameos that should persuade us to reflect carefully on the results of the policy.
One of the key ingredients in the mixture is a strong budget. The £1.5 billion cuts in the budget for the RAF are not settled, so perhaps the Minister will comment on that issue when he winds up the debate. Can he unequivocally guarantee that the Government currently have no intention either of reducing the number of Eurofighter Typhoons that they procure, or of amending the timetable for that procurement?
The joint strike fighter programme is vital to the development of our aerospace industry, but there is a bill to be met. I understand that if we are to participate in the

463
process over the next four years, the Government have to commit $1.6 billion; if they do not, we shall be unable to sit at the table with other partners and, more important, we will not have the leverage needed to have access to the full range of technologies involved in the programme. I hope that the Minister can offer an assurance that the Government stand four-square behind British participation in the project and that the money to keep us at the top table will be made available.
I should be grateful for clarification of the position on the future offensive air system, which has not yet been mentioned in the debate. I understand that it has the potential to serve as seedcorn for new technologies and as the source of the replacement for the Tornado, whether that is a manned or unmanned aircraft. The project has become enmeshed in some of the thinking about the joint strike fighter and about modifying and upgrading the Eurofighter Typhoon, perhaps for a marine application. How do the Government perceive the future offensive air system in the context of its relationship to the joint strike fighter and modifications to existing equipment?
Will the Minister comment on the Government's efforts to settle with the Government of India the question of their procurement of the successful Hawk aircraft? Finally, will he explain the problem with the adoption of the thermal imaging and laser designation system on the Tornado GR4? In a letter dated 27 April, the Minister for the Armed Forces tried to tell me that the nature of some of the problems was technological, but, in a letter from the MOD dated 8 October, I was told that the problems emerged during trials run by the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency which uncovered
a number of unforeseen difficulties with the TIALD system.
Considering how long the Tornado mid-life update was in procurement, I find it distressing that I should have received two diametrically opposed opinions from the MOD on a problem that should have been solved before a single GR4 was accepted back into service. However, I am grateful to the Minister for his tribute to BAE Systems for the work that it has done in sorting that out.
Finally, on the theme of personnel, attracting people into an engineering environment is vital to the procurement industry, but attracting people into the RAF is equally important. As president of 2468 squadron of the Air Cadet Force in my constituency I see the poor-quality equipment that those young cadets who are keen on defence have to use on the two nights a week and at the weekends when they come along to learn their skills. Would it not be right to invest a little more in more up-to-date equipment and premises for those young people? They are the seedcorn of our aerospace industry and the RAF and they deserve a better deal.
5.25 pm
Ms Dari Taylor: I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's announcement to the House this afternoon. Placing additional orders for strategic kit will support effective operability and defence capability in the theatre of operation. I am more than delighted to hear that two of the four ALSLs, the amphibious landing ships, will be built on the Tyne. It gives me real pleasure.
464
I worked on the Tyne when the Conservative Government decided not to award contracts to Swan Hunter. My union, the General, Municipal, Boilermakers and Allied Trades Union, which represented more than 3,500 people, was destroyed by that. It was seen as a deliberately vindictive attempt to close down a Labour community. That Labour community is most certainly still there and it will be joyful tonight. My constituency is the Tees and the sister company to Swan Hunter is Herema on the Tees. I hope that, with clustering and an emphasis on community and on widening capacity, my company on the Tees will also benefit from the order. I know for certain that Corns, which makes the best steel in the world, will ensure that it tenders to supply the steel for those ships.
The House is seeing the reality of the strategic defence review, with billions of pounds being spent on modernising the armed forces to ensure that they are equipped for the post-cold war period, with sufficient flexibility and mobility for rapid deployment. That is something of which to be proud, and I am more than proud to say that it is my Government who are doing it.
I have watched our armed forces with care, and people know that my interest is a keen one. I have watched them with care in the Balkans, I have had the pleasure of meeting our armed forces in Bosnia and I recently watched their actions in Kosovo. More and more, I have come to the conclusion that, because they were so clearly denied the equipment that they needed by the previous Government, we now rely heavily on the capabilities of the people who are the backbone of the armed forces.
Having visited our armed forces far too many times to be under any illusion about what happened under the Conservative Government, I also came to the conclusion that that Government left our armed forces seriously frustrated and demoralised, ill-equipped for combat and unfocused with regard to their role in the world, and they left an MOD less, rather than more, capable of spending public money effectively. Therefore, I am more than pleased to be standing here today, taking part in a procurement debate in which my Government are saying how and in what way they will facilitate an effective armed force for tomorrow.
The reality of my statements is borne out in the report of the Select Committee on Defence on the lessons of Kosovo. My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) and his Committee are to be congratulated on their thorough report.
The Select Committee report concludes that, in the theatre of operations, the British Army was left with incompatible information systems across NATO. That is a telling statement. The Army was using insecure and obsolete United Kingdom tactical communications. Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe told the Committee that
so far as interception of communications was concerned, the Yugoslays had us cold.
What an indictment of the Conservative party! The report states that there was a lack of all-weather precision-bombing capability, and that there was a continuing deficit in United Kingdom and European strategic lift capabilities.
I contend that the various serious defects in the United Kingdom's capability are down to the previous Government's apparent indifference to the requirements

465
of the armed forces. I believe that the Conservative Government used the peace premium as a convenient excuse to neglect and cut the armed forces. To believe that it is possible to put right the ills of years of neglect in the short time that we have been in government is to believe in miracles. From the Opposition's actions and their speeches today, they clearly believe in miracles. Indeed, they believe blindly in miracles.
The serious underfunding of the British armed forces for many years is being remedied at last. Perhaps the process is too slow even for me, and I am confident, challenging and robust about the matter. However, the process is happening. Billions of pounds are being spent appropriately and deservedly on an excellent British Army.
The Government are laying the foundations for a long-term vision of excellence in the field of operation, in the constructs of partnership for peace with NATO, and in the development of an EU defence initiative. My constituents in Stockton, South and on the Tees will benefit from that vision. It does not simply mean work, but a sense of pride and satisfaction in the fact that our armed forces have a tomorrow that they certainly deserve.
5.32 pm
Mr. David Chidgey: The hon. Member for Stockton, South (Ms Taylor) made an interesting and impassioned contribution as she expressed her joy and delight at the good fortune of her constituency. Many hon. Members who are here today have constituency interests. I wish I could speak with the same joy and passion because the defence industry is vital to the economy of Hampshire. [Interruption.] The Under-Secretary seems to be making an encouraging remark, which is always good to hear. However, perhaps he will not be so enthusiastic when he hears what I have to say.
Hampshire has the most defence-dependent economy of all the shire counties in the country. I have reminded hon. Members on several occasions that more than 300 firms are employed by the defence industry to a significant extent in Hampshire, especially around Eastleigh and Southampton. I am sure that the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead) wishes to make similar points.
I want to concentrate on only two matters this afternoon to give other hon. Members an opportunity to contribute. I shall speak about two major defence procurement projects, both of which other hon. Members have mentioned in passing or in greater detail. They are the Bowman project, which is now deceased, and the type 45 destroyer programme, which has yet to leave the cradle.
The Secretary of State said that we should learn from our mistakes. There is a lot to be learned from what happened to Bowman. I have a specific interest in the Bowman project because the company that was responsible for the procurement was based in my constituency. It no longer exists. Bowman was supposed to create for our armed forces an integrated communications system, which would have been a world beater. It would have equipped anything from a Land Rover to an aircraft carrier with the most highly sophisticated, most advanced communications system in the world. It would have given massive advantages to our armed forces and it had huge export potential. It could have earned many billions of pounds for the UK economy.
466
The project was years late in being commissioned by the MOD—for which I do not blame the present Government—leaving our armed forces struggling with out-of-date and archaic equipment known as the Clansman system, which was little more advanced, some say, than the old VALs. In addition, the contractors appointed to undertake the project had suffered delay after delay while the MOD kept changing its mind and specifications.
Hon. Members will know that the National Audit Office was highly critical of the institutional delays built into the MOD project management at the time which caused the delays to the Bowman project. I visited the main contractor, Archer Communications, in my constituency many times to see the problems and difficulties it faced in the three years until the project was cancelled. I will never forget seeing a wall chart in the managing director's office which set out how management and staff had to deal with the MOD in the project. The wall chart gave the project hierarchy of the various departments, sections and specialists within the MOD involved in the project. More than 100 people were involved in different phases of the management process of the project. They were all part of the decision chain; or, should I say. the indecision chain.
It was impossible for the contractor to get timely answers to queries and decisions on developments. There seemed to be a complete ignorance of the basic concept that, for a contractor, time is money. In spite of the efforts of the contractor, the outcome was that the project was further delayed, the cost estimates escalated and—perhaps to cover their embarrassment—the Government cancelled the project; or, should we say, redefined it. The net result was that £200 million of taxpayers' money was lost and will not be recovered in the redevelopment of the project. I agree with the NAO that that money was wasted. Some 650 highly skilled and advanced engineering jobs were lost to my constituency and, as a result, a centre of excellence was destroyed.
In correspondence with me, the Government—through the Minister for Defence Procurement—have said that if smart procurement had been in place, these pitfalls would have been avoided and the problem would not have arisen. Smart procurement is now in place, so presumably it will not arise again on other projects. That is why I wish to refer to the type 45 destroyer procurement programme.
The Government announced in July that, under their procurement strategy, BAE Systems would be the prime contractor. Vosper Thornycroft and BAE Marine would be design and construction contractors for the first three vessels. The Secretary of State said at the time that the Government's approach in the programme would ensure that experience in the type 45 construction was spread between BAE Systems, BAE Marine and Vosper Thornycroft, assisting future competition for follow-on ships.
The key point is that Vosper Thornycroft and BAE Marine were to participate equally. It was a cornerstone of the Government's strategy to maintain competition in warship building in the UK. However, to achieve that, there must be fair and equal allocation of work on the type 45, particularly in the early part of the programme—the first three ships.

467
It is important to remember that the prime contractor gave the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry an undertaking as a condition of its merger, or takeover, with Marconi. The undertaking was not to discriminate in favour of its own subsidiaries when tendering as prime contractor. The Government's procurement strategy should be accepted as overriding individual companies' commercial aspirations.
There are real concerns at VT that BAE Systems is seeking to move away from equal work sharing on the type 45. Contract negotiations are being prolonged and agreements on prices are being revisited and queried time and again, all adding to delays that may crucially affect VT's continued participation in the project.
VT has acknowledged that it has a short-term gap in production, and as a result, 650 shipyard workers have been given predictive redundancy notices, which will start to take effect in January. The type 45 project is supposed to be ordered by the end of this year. Those 650 skilled craftsmen are more than half the work force. If the redundancies go ahead, the VT shipbuilding division could become unviable.
If the contract is delayed, VT will be unable to keep that essential work force intact. It will be unable to justify investment that it needs to make to meet the targets in the type 45 production programme, and it could well decide to withdraw from warship construction altogether. If, because of the stumbling blocks, delays and indecision, and because its work force has been stripped, it withdraws to concentrate on its other wide and successful ventures in engineering, production, manufacturing and training, the Government's strategy for retaining competition in the warship building industry will be in shreds.
Government Members may wish to reflect on the wider, long-term effects. There are currently about 4,500 skilled craftsmen in the warship building industry. At the peak of the Government's programme for warship building, we will need 9,000. If VT were to withdraw from shipbuilding, we would lose more than a quarter of our existing skills base and would be going backwards rather than forwards. History shows that when such skilled people leave shipbuilding, they do not come back, as there is great demand for their skills in other industries. We could be taking a highly retrograde step, when we need to build up the skills base in the shipbuilding industry for the over-30 ships programme.
The Government must maintain competition in the UK warship building industry. They must ensure that the type 45 destroyer procurement strategy is adhered to by all the parties. They must ensure that companies such as VT receive fair and equal allocation of work, especially for the first three type 45 destroyers. I would hope that, by doing that, the Government can ensure that the 650 jobs at VT—many of them filled by people from Eastleigh and most of them requiring skilled craftsmen—are not lost to the industry. That is how the Government can demonstrate to me and my constituents that they are committed to smart procurement.
5.43 pm
Mr. Stephen Hepburn: As a member of the Select Committee on Defence, it was my intention all along to speak in this debate, as the Committee has
468
devoted a great deal of effort to procurement issues, and specifically to the lessons learned from recent engagements by our armed forces throughout the world, but the announcements made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State give me an ideal opportunity to comment on his procurement decisions and how they affect the area that I represent in the north-east.
I extend the warmest possible welcome to the decision to award the contract to build the alternative landing ships to Swan Hunter on the Tyne. It is good news for the armed forces because, as my right hon. Friend said, the current provision is over 30 years old and in desperate need of replacement, but it is especially good for the workers on Tyneside and those in my constituency who will benefit directly from the work in that yard.
The order will create about 2,000 jobs on Tyneside. Workers who are at present scattered all over the world, not just the United Kingdom, will get the opportunity to come back and work in their home town. Moreover, more than 500 extra jobs will be created in the external economy, thanks to the economic activity in the area. That is great news.
Probably more important than any other factor, however, is the creation at the Swan Hunter yard of 100 apprenticeships. Skilled workers on the Tyne average 50 years of age, and the figure is rising, so those apprenticeships are crucial. The fact that the average age today is 50 does not mean that it will be 51 next year: the cyclical basis of the industry means that the average will be 53 in a year's time.
The decision announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State today is crucial. It will stabilise the shipbuilding and repair industry on the Tyne, and it will pave the way for additional Ministry of Defence contracts—possibly for the manufacture of aircraft carriers—in the future. The order is therefore excellent news for Tyneside.
However, it would be wrong of me not to voice my concern at my right hon. Friend's decision about the ro-ro contracts. I have had meetings with my right hon. Friend about them, and I have also mentioned the issue twice in debates in this House. I have also asked a parliamentary question on the matter. No explanation that I have been given of why the private finance option was taken has convinced me that the decision would be helpful to British industry.
I welcome the fact that part of the order is going to Belfast. The creation of 500 extra jobs there is good news for the area's economic viability and for the peace process. Many of my colleagues who work in the north-east shipyards also work in Belfast, where they have made friends for life with their co-workers in the industry. Yet the decision about the four remaining ro-ros should be questioned. The industry in the UK does not share a level playing field with that on the continent. People who work abroad will confirm that, as will business leaders and trade union leaders.
To place a multi-million pound order, and the years of work involved in it, with a European contractor, at the expense of workers on the Tyne, the Mersey, the Clyde and the south coast is indefensible. I would love to know what other European country would do that—I do not believe that any would.
The order for the four ro-ro vessels is going to Germany, but is my right hon. Friend aware that the bulk of the work will probably be done in Poland, where there

469
is a cheap labour regime? To understand how firms in Poland undercut British industry, one has only to look at the contract that is being proposed.
There should be an investigation across the political spectrum into initiatives that have been funded by means of the PFI. Is it in the taxpayer's interest to export the jobs involved in the order abroad? I know that my right hon. Friend was under intense pressure from civil servants, but recent developments have taught us that they are not always correct.
My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George), who is Chairman of the Defence Committee, said earlier that the Committee was told in evidence from the Ministry of Defence that the ro-ro ships would not be classed as warships. Those ships will operate in war zones, and it does not take much imagination to understand that vessels working in areas of conflict should be designated as warships. I believe that the advice given to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was wrong.
My right hon. Friend has confirmed that the ro-ro vessels will sail under a foreign flag—except in times of conflict. I am led to believe that the consortiums building the other vessels gave a guarantee that the crews on those ships would be British and would sail under the British flag, and that they would belong to the RMT union. Those are the options for Glasgow, Tyneside and Merseyside.
It is acceptable in peacetime that the vessels should be able to work around the world and under foreign flags, with their foreign crews earning their wages for being involved in fruitful employment. However, in times of war, when it gets dangerous, British lads will have to crew the ships. If it is right for them to work when it is dangerous, it should be right for them in times of peace to make money for themselves and their families.
This policy flies in the face of our maritime policy. Under the leadership of the Deputy Prime Minister, a tonnage tax was introduced that was linked to training and employment, and the employment of British crews under a United Kingdom flag. Flying under a foreign flag goes against that policy.
I appeal to the Minister to scrap the whole thing. The Government should go back to the drawing board and come up with a design that can be classed as a warship. No one is saying that the order should not be awarded to Belfast, the south coast or Tyneside—as long as it is awarded to a British yard so that we can get the benefit.
There are examples: the replacement for the Atlantic Conveyor, which was sunk in the Falklands, was built at Swan Hunter and paid for by public money. It was given to P&O, but was always at the call of the British military for use in times of conflict.
Notwithstanding that, I do not want one daft decision on ro-ros to overshadow today's great announcement for Tyneside as far as jobs are concerned. There is no doubt that the order for Swan Hunter is good for Tyneside. It stabilises the industry, gives the north-east economy a shot in the arm and sends the message that Tyneside has a future in shipbuilding and ship repair. However, I ask the Secretary of State to think again about ro-ros.
5.51 pm
Dr. Alan Whitehead: I wish to speak about a specific area of current defence procurement—the type 45 destroyer programme. I do so
470
as a Member of Parliament representing a Southampton seat, because the Vosper Thornycroft yard is in Southampton.
First, I wish to say a few words about how I see the current state of defence procurement. It will not exactly hit the headlines, but there is a stark contrast between the Government's overall approach and the previous Government's woeful record. The previous Government appeared to have a blind spot on defence procurement. It was always curious to me that at the same time as they were announcing draconian penalties for local authorities which had marginally stepped out of line on compulsory competitive tendering, they were tolerating huge overruns on contracts, inadequate competition safeguards, sole tender contracts and all sorts of practices in defence procurement. Collectively, that meant that far more was spent on equipment than was necessary and far longer was spent completing contracts than should have been tolerated. The result was that there was far less investment and equipment than could have been the case.
The recent National Audit Office report on the cost overrun on 25 major projects suggested that about £3.2 billion had been spent on those overruns which could have secured more than half of the projected type 45 destroyer programme. That is the extent of the overruns that the previous Government appeared happy to tolerate.
The overall design of the type 45 programme is the result of smart procurement—the idea that we get better value and that contracts are completed more quickly by paying closer attention to procurement, ensuring that competition is sound and procurement is carried out in a best value regime. However, a problem arises when we apply smart procurement to the type 45 programme, because only two companies could build the vessels for the programme. The question is how to ensure good value and effective competition when there are only two tenderers. In this sense we get into game theory—the so-called prisoner's dilemma and chicken. It becomes difficult to envisage real competition when there are only two tenderers; both are likely to know the moves of the other but will not necessarily have the same starting point in their tendering practices.
With a programme of 12 ships to be tendered for over a period of time, there has to be competition over the life of the bidding. It is no good simply having a competition at the beginning of the bidding, after which the rest of the competition goes out of the window because one of the competitors may not subsequently be able to compete.
Again I quote Sir Robert Walmsley, who has been mentioned this afternoon and who said, very appositely, to the Defence Committee last year:
Let me come back to the very real point of Vospers and competition. The issue of making sure that Vospers are a credible competitor has very much conditioned our approach to this programme because we know that if we do not compete the follow-on production order there will be very little incentive to shipyards to improve their performance. We know what a success it has been on Type 23s, and there is a sense in which you need one really good competition and it moves everything forward to a new datum from which subsequent incremental improvements can be achieved.
He was clear about the need to ensure proper competition throughout the building of the 12 vessels and about the fact that Vosper is, and will be, an important part of that competition.

471
The design that the Government have gone for for this complicated contract and to solve the problem of two tenderers only, is to eschew a straight bid for ship one, which might save some money in the short term but would be disastrous in the longer term, and go instead for a prime contractor for the first three vessels. Vessels one and three are to be built at Yarrow, while vessel two is to be built at Vosper's, but modular work on vessels one and three will be carried out by Vosper and the design and engineering will be shared between the two yards, so that, by the completion of ship three, both yards will have shared the work about 50:50. Most importantly, both yards will have shared the learning curve so that they can compete on an equal playing field for the vessels thereafter.
By the time that the yards have to bid for vessels four to 12, as Sir Robert said, all involved will have a realistic chance of winning. That is the idea of smart procurement as it is applied to that contract. In principle, that seems a sound system and a sound method of ensuring that the 12-vessel contract can be procured at the best value for the British taxpayer.
What if the prime contractor is also the owner of one of the two yards scheduled to build the first three vessels, however? That is the case with the type 45 contract. This is a hypothetical temptation, but I can imagine it being very real. Rationally, as a business, the prime contractor's goal would be to gain a monopoly over the building of the 12 vessels if possible. Indeed, the rational action to take in that case would be to ensure that the competition was not in a position to tender after three vessels, or better still, was not in a position to complete the work on the first three.
Appearances certainly suggest confirmation of that strategy. I am not saying that that is the case, just that it appears that way to me on the south coast and to some people who are involved with Vosper's shipyard. Vosper and Yarrow were asked to put in a price to the prime contractor for the work. They know each other's prices and are collaborating on the work. The prime contractor said, however, that the prices were too high, even though the productivity gain in the prices submitted was, I understand, unprecedented.
That is the equivalent of a poker game between two players when one has a limitless line of credit with the casino owner and the other has only the chips that he brought to the table. The object in those circumstances might therefore not be to win with the best cards but simply to drive the opponent away from the table because one has superior betting power.
That is a real problem for the strategy as far as the Government are concerned. It is certainly a real issue for the 600 workers at Vosper's yard who have had precautionary redundancy notices served on them because the signatures on the dotted line are not there between Vosper and the prime contractors despite the Government's good intentions.
The danger is that if the process drags on too long—whether accidentally or deliberately—Vosper will have to declare those men redundant. As the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey) said, after that it would be difficult to get back to the starting line to compete for
472
a contract. Then, we would end up with a monopoly contractor, which is the opposite of what the Government intend.
It may be said that this is not an issue for Government because it is an internal matter between the prime contractor and its subcontractors. Indeed, the Secretary of State suggested that this afternoon. However, given the specialised and very restricted circumstances that I have mentioned, it is an issue for the Government. The outcome of an internal decision to procrastinate on the contract can overthrow the entire admirable and supportable smart procurement structure that the Government have set out for type 45s.
It is important that the Government ensure that the prime contractor lets the contracts on time, and with Sir Richard's words firmly in its ears. I do not know the small print and detail of the prime contract with BAE, nor whether the Government have already taken action, but I suggest that they should do so and ensure that the small print is adhered to. I would welcome hearing the Minister's thoughts on that in his reply. There is a real possibility that smart procurement, with all its manifest advantages will not work in the specialised circumstances of the type 45 programme. That will be desperately sad for the 600 men who would lose their jobs at Vospers but, more important, it could be very costly for the United Kingdom defence procurement programme and might force a return to the inefficiencies and the regime that we have thankfully got away from with our smart procurement programme.
6.1 pm
Dr. Rudi Vis: I thank my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for his informative words, but I should like to probe two aspects of military procurement. They have nothing to do with my constituency. In fact, procurement has little to do with my constituency. First, in what overall international political context are military procurement decisions made? Secondly, once delivery of military hardware and software has been obtained, what can be done if the goods are faulty?
I shall pose some questions for my hon. Friend the Minister to consider. The documents before us and what has been said earlier give little away about the overall international political context. We are considering projects and comments on projects, but I cannot easily discern an overall international political strategy in which those projects can be judged. That may well be my fault and, if so, I am sure that I will be told.
For example, my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Hepburn) said that the four ships will be built in Germany, probably with cheap Polish labour. If there is no international political context, we cannot judge whether the decisions are good or bad, or made on political or financial grounds. When the European Union is enlarged, we shall have to help out Poland, and that may be one of the means to do so.
My main interest is that military procurement is a highly political issue, with aspects involving finance, resources, efficiency, interested parties, international obligations and institutions, nation states and employment issues. I am particularly interested in the international political context of procurement, and I shall explain why.
I am not a member of the Select Committee on Defence. I am therefore not steeped in its peculiar language or paucity of political perspective. The emphasis

473
is on contracts, on weaponry and on which constituency gets what. I am very surprised by what has been said, given the lack of that context.
I am a member of the Western European Union Assembly. I attended my first meeting of the political committee of the WEU about two and half years ago. Before that meeting, I decided that I would read the papers carefully and that I would keep my mouth firmly shut during my first committee proceeding. The paper's rapporteur was Mr. Martinez, a parliamentarian from Spain, and its title was "WEU Relations with Russia". It was 16 pages long and dated 5 March 1998. I read the paper with care. Overtly, its objective was about the Russian Federation's becoming an associate member of the Western European Union but, covertly, its objective was more sinister. Reading between the lines, it argued for Russia to become an associate member and, for good measure, it also threw in the Ukraine in its conclusion. The inclusion of Russia in the WEU would create a breach between Europe and the United States and weaken the Atlantic alliance. The paper also proposed moving substantial European military procurement to Russia.
One passage from that paper stated:
And in an interview with Corriera della Sera on 8 February 1998 the Russian President did go as far as to reveal his country's intention of becoming a full member of all the institutions working for European integration in an effort to counter United States domination and monopoly.
The Russians certainly play a long game.
I found the paper arrogant, brash in its twisting of history and full of half-truths. During the meeting, about eight WEU delegates were particularly sycophantic and I broke the golden rule of never speaking in a first meeting. I pointed out my misgivings but Mr. Martinez became displeased with my comments. The final vote was 39 to one, and I felt what the Tories must have felt daily since May 1997.
After the meeting, nine delegates told me that they had misgivings too, but felt that they could not vote against Mr. Martinez. I did not know much about him at the time, but I later found out that he was a former president of the Council of Europe, and had ushered in Russia's membership. Russia has now been more or less slung out of the Council of Europe; at least, its vote has been taken away. Mr. Martinez has done much internationally—in Europe and transatlantically—and he is now a Member of the European Parliament, where he tells the same stories.
In subsequent meetings during the past few years, I have met several members of the Russian delegation and Members of the Duma. In the main, I found them demanding—never giving—and often arrogant. It reminded me, incidentally, of discussions with Americans.
The hon. Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) rightly mentioned the percentages of 100, 60 and 15. I sometimes wonder whether we bear that point in mind sufficiently in relation to international military procurement. We should bear the EU in mind in such contexts, and perhaps go beyond OCCAR, and we should have discussions with our colleagues in the EU.
My second point, which is slightly shorter, involves the delivery by firms of military hardware that is found to be faulty when used. Two points from our experience in Kosovo come to mind. First, were military procurement and negotiation and research facilities so weak and ill
474
informed that one could sell them, as the song goes, any old iron? Secondly, do we use price efficiency ratios and other indicators to judge performance?
The public increasingly feel that the taxpayer is being robbed by dodgy entrepreneurs in the military sector. If a house builder sells one a new house and the roof collapses, one has means of redress, but if anti-armour missiles and all-weather, precision-guided bombs do not work, who pays? That matter should be more openly discussed.
In summary, will my hon. Friend explain whether we have an overall political international procurement perspective in the United Kingdom? If so, what are the details, especially with regard to proposed EU developments? My hon. Friend will no doubt answer me in writing. Secondly, who decides about which matters? Are the United Kingdom, the United States, the EU or multinationals involved, or are all of them involved, and in what context? Finally, who pays when we receive dodgy goods, when there are price overruns or time overruns, and when costly mistakes are committed by firms after procurement, even once inefficiencies in MOD processes are taken into account? I look forward to my hon. Friend's reply.
6.9 pm
Ms Rachel Squire: First, I pay tribute to the people who work in our shipyards, dockyards and defence industry who try daily to deliver of their best. Secondly, I pay tribute to Ministers who have difficult procurement decisions to make, as was demonstrated earlier today. Thirdly, I pay tribute to our armed forces who are so highly thought of throughout the world and whose lives depend on the equipment that we procure for them. Unfortunately, over the years, we have not provided the best equipment for them to meet their needs. That has been highlighted in reports from the Ministry of Defence, the National Audit Office and the Defence Committee.
My next point concerns a constituency matter. Unfortunately, Parliamentary Private Secretary commitments kept me from the Chamber during the private notice question on hunter-killer submarines earlier this week. The Secretary of State mentioned it today and I should like to ask the Minister three questions. First, does he agree that Rosyth dockyard has excellent facilities and a highly skilled and professional work force ideally suited to undertake submarine repair and refit work? Secondly, will he make a commitment that Babcock Rosyth will get its fair share of any additional repair work that is being handed out on the Swiftsure and Trafalgar class submarines? Thirdly, does he agree that this unfortunate incident demonstrates the need to have at least two dockyard facilities in the United Kingdom?
On a national issue, I pay tribute to the Government's efforts to smarten up the procurement procedure—this smart acquisition, as it is now called, just to confuse all of us who are daily confused by defence jargon. Both the NAO and Defence Committee reports recognise that, in the past three years, some progress has been made, albeit slowly. Criticisms of the procurement process need to be levelled more at the previous Government than at the present Government, who have made every effort to start to change the system.
I listened with great interest to the comments on the type 45 frigate because recently I visited the Defence Procurement Agency at Abbey Woods. I was given an

475
excellent presentation on the type 45 and the BVRAAM. I was impressed by the whole concept of the integrated project teams and the complex and challenging matters with which they have to deal.
That brings me to two or three brief points on the international front. As has been said, the type 45 frigate was originally supposed to be a collaborative effort with the French and Italian Governments, when it was known as the common new generation frigate or project Horizon. Various difficulties arose, particularly disagreements over the capabilities required. Does that mean, as the hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) seems to suggest, that we should ditch ideas of international collaboration and co-operation on procurement issues? I think not.
We need international collaboration to provide us with all the defence equipment that we need. It may be hard to face up to this, but our country, like many others, can no longer afford to deliver every single item of defence equipment entirely through British industry. We need co-operation and collaboration to do that. It does not make sense to go it alone, strategically, operationally or, frankly, industrially.
We need international collaboration to build on our alliances, particularly NATO, and to promote interoperability between and with our allies. As we all know, the reality is that defence procurement decisions are influenced not only by what is the best equipment, but by foreign policy and trade and industry considerations.
We also need international collaboration and co-operation because of globalisation. During the past 10 years, the world defence industry has been rationalised into four prime defence contractors, of which BAE Systems is one. That raises certain issues as to competitiveness in the UK. It also links us to the whole rationalisation of the European defence industry and to the development of a European market that can compete with the US without taking us into either Fortress Europe or Fortress America. We must take those alliances into consideration in our procurement decisions, while protecting our national interests.
Finally, international collaboration and co-operation are important for technological development, which moves so rapidly. That highlights how important it is for DERA and the Defence Diversification Agency to keep us up to pace with that technology. We must ensure that the skills of our shipyards, dockyards and defence industry are efficiently translated into promoting civilian manufacturing, engineering and technological excellence while maintaining our defence capabilities.
We may be a small country, but we have always thought big. We should continue to do so.
6.16 pm
Ms Claire Ward: This is the first time that I have wanted to speak in a defence debate. Previously, I felt that I did not have enough experience or knowledge to contribute to such debates. However, during the past few months, I have taken part in the armed forces parliamentary scheme, serving with the Royal Marines. That experience and my conversations and discussions with service personnel have shown me that there are a
476
number of problems with some of their equipment, many of which do not seem to have been considered in decisions on future procurement.
The Royal Marines and members of all our armed services are dedicated, professional and highly motivated. No one wants conflict to take place. No one wants to send forces into conflict, but we all want to ensure that, should military conflict be necessary, our air, sea and land forces have the equipment that they need to do the job. I suspect that, in some recent conflicts, it is the dedication and the skills of our personnel rather than their equipment—unfortunately, sometimes, in spite of their equipment—that have achieved our success.
My hon. Friend the Secretary of State referred to the SA80 rifle. Whenever I asked Royal Marines which was their worst piece of equipment, they replied, without hesitation, that it was the SA80. I witnessed trials on their firing ranges and on exercises and on several occasions the weapon did not work. It works neither in desert conditions nor when there is excessive moisture in the air. The jamming is such that only about 30 per cent. of the rifles work at any given time. The design of the weapon is poor; it makes both right and left-hand use impossible. The reliability of the SA80 is extremely questionable and that puts our troops in danger in certain conflicts.
I understand that a programme of alterations has already been agreed by the Ministry of Defence. If possible, will my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary tell us this evening when that programme will be completed to ensure that some upgrading and improvements take place to provide a much better weapon, although certainly not the kind of weapon that our armed forces deserve and would like to have? Will that weapon get to the front line so that our rapidly deployed forces can use it?
I am also concerned about landing craft utilities. Last week, I visited Poole with the Royal Marines and had an opportunity to see the vessels and landing craft that they are using at the moment. The mark 10 landing craft utility is due to come into service in future and is currently in trials. It was originally commissioned in the mid-1980s but, some years down the line, it still has not come into being and several problems make it inappropriate for the kind of work that our Royal Marines would like to undertake with it.
During the testing of much equipment, including weapons, landing craft and radios—several hon. Members have mentioned the Bowman programme—there have been many instances when the views of military personnel were not taken into account. Many issues raised by personnel are simple and straightforward and concern things that would make life a lot easier for them if only those who procured the equipment listened to the views of those who risked their lives for this country. The personnel work with the equipment day to day, and have a much greater knowledge of it than anyone in the Chamber or the Whitehall offices of the Ministry of Defence. I am concerned that there appears to be a lack of interest in listening to those who use the equipment on a daily basis.
I am conscious of time and the need for Front-Bench spokespersons to answer all the points that have been made in a debate, in which many interesting issues were raised. However, may I make a strong case for greater opportunity for service personnel to be involved in procurement issues? They feel that they are constantly left out and that their views are not heard. Much of the news

477
that they get about when equipment is likely to come on stream is filtered through the system and is corrupted one way or another, a little bit like Chinese whispers. They do not get the information that would allow them to feel confident that the procurement of equipment takes into account their concerns and needs. I would be grateful if my hon. Friend in his winding-up speech gives comfort to those who serve on the front line about when the equipment is likely to be completed—and when, in particular, the SA80 will be upgraded—so that they can be assured of the equipment that they deserve and that is necessary for them to carry out their duties.
6.23 pm
Mr. Quentin Davies: In many ways, our debate has been extremely revealing and some important subjects have been raised. As I do not have an enormous amount of time, I hope that I may be forgiven for not following my usual practice of commenting on every Back-Bench contribution.
Let me single out five contributions that were particularly original and well informed, one of which was the contribution of the hon. Member for Watford (Ms Ward). We all welcome her to these defence debates and, given her obvious knowledge of, and sympathy for, the subject, I hope that we shall hear a great deal from her in future—perhaps as early as next week, if she is lucky enough to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I should like to compliment my right hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack), who also knows a lot about defence and made a strong case on the need for us to maintain a military and industrial base in this country. Otherwise, as he rightly pointed out, in a crisis we would simply not have the skills available to convert equipment rapidly and support our troops, sailors and airmen in the field.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers), who has a long record of taking part in defence debates, made some very good points. He made one point that needs to be made over and over again. Despite all the spin and announcements of announcements that are made or contracts that are to be signed, the Government have not signed a single contract or committed money to build a single warship since they took over the reins of power in 1997. No one should be allowed to get away with that, irrespective of the talents of the spin doctors whom the Labour party employs. My hon. Friend reminded us of the importance of the medical back-up for our military forces and what a tragedy it is that the Government have seen fit to close the last military hospital at Haslar.
The hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey) is not in the Chamber. I am sorry about that because I want to say some nice things about him, even if he is a Liberal. It does not happen very often. He gave us a fascinating insider's view, which I have not heard from anyone, of the shambles of the Bowman programme during the three and a half years until the Government cancelled it a short while ago.
Dr. Moonie: It has been going on for longer than that.
Mr. Davies: The contract with Archer dates from 1997 and has just been terminated by the Government. So for the whole period of the Archer contract, as every week and month went by, we cumulatively lost the £200 million
478
of which the hon. Member for Eastleigh has reminded the House. It was the Minister or his colleagues who were responsible for that, and they cannot get away from it. I shall come back to that later because it is an important issue.
The hon. Member for Eastleigh also gave us a fascinating insight into the position of Vosper Thornycroft, which, in the light of the decisions announced today and the mishandling of the type 45 procurement, may well cease to be an option for the Ministry of Defence when it wishes to procure naval vessels. That is a serious matter.
I do not want to embarrass the hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Hepburn) by supporting him, but he made a devastating attack on the Government's procurement policy and today's announcement. Nothing that anyone on the Conservative Benches could say would be more eloquent than the speech made by the hon. Gentleman, who holds a different ideological and political point of view and comes from a different parliamentary tradition.
The great event of today—"great" is perhaps the wrong word; the important event of today—was the announcement of the Government's intentions with regard to procuring the roll on/roll off ferries. We all agree that they are vital, and agree with the need for naval strategic lift. The Government's decision had two particularly unsatisfactory aspects, the significance of which goes much wider than defence procurement or capability, and to the heart of the nature of the Government's relations with Parliament and the way in which the Government take decisions, present them to the public and account to the public for them, as they should do in a democracy. Both aspects are thoroughly unsatisfactory—and that is the mildest word that I can use.
First, we had one more case of an important announcement that was supposed to be made in Parliament being made first in the media. You were in the Chair at the time, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and you expressed your personal concern and undertook to take the matter up from the Chair. You said all the right things, as much as you could. I have no illusions. I believe that Ministers will go home tonight sniggering as they walk away from the House into the darkness, thinking complacently that they have got away with it once again, and that nothing will happen to them. They will try it on a second, third, fourth and 500th time. That is the way of the Government, and it is lamentable.
The second unsatisfactory aspect of the affair is the way in which the decision has been taken and defended to the public. The implicationߞalthough I think it was more like a statement than an implication—of the Secretary of State's remarks was that the Government had no choice but to allow the bid to go to the lowest tenderer in the European Union. The implication was that the public procurement directive and the Treaty of European Union left the Government with no option. However, that is not true. The Government had a choice as to whether to go down the private finance initiative route or the public-private partnership route to procure the vessels.
The decision to take the PFI route meant that the private sector partner would become the nominal owner and the purchaser of the ship. Therefore, the public procurement directive would apply and the purchase would not be protected as a piece of Government procurement for military purposes. The Government took that decision,

479
but we do not know whether they were so incompetent and naive that it never occurred to them, when they decided on the PFI structure, that the inevitable consequence was that the order would have to be offered to competition throughout the European Union. If they did not know that or even think about it, on the basis of competence alone those on the Treasury Bench should not be there.
However—I fear that this might be so—if it was not a matter of competence but one of honesty and they knew perfectly well of the inexorable consequences of the route that they had chosen to go down and were determined to disguise them from Parliament and the public, they obviously behaved in an utterly unforgivable fashion. We may never know the answer, but Parliament is entitled to know which of those alternatives is true. There is no third, fourth or fifth logical possibility. One of the alternatives must be true and both are damning.
The Secretary of State seemed to cover himself against the possibility that we might find out the answer to my question by implying that the vessels did not qualify under the treaty for protection against the public procurement directive. I thought that it was not an accident but a little sinister that he either deliberately or inadvertently continued to use wrong and inappropriate terminology that is not relevant to this legal issue. He said that the roll on/roll off ferries were not "warlike vessels" and implied that they were not warships. Perhaps he hoped that the inference would be drawn that they would not be protected from the public procurement directive even if the Government had been their direct owner and operator.
Article 296 of the treaty appears after the section on single market legislation and it is relevant. It says that the Government must be open about their procurement within the Union on everything except the military equipment that is defined in the article. It says nothing about warlike vessels or warlike equipment, but refers to
Products…intended for specifically military purposes.
These roll on/roll off ferries are intended explicitly for a specifically military purpose. Although they do not fire missiles, they will play a military role. Therefore, it is unarguable, according to the treaty, that had the Government procured them in the normal way, they could have protected that order. They could have given it to British shipyards had they wished to do so. I fear that they did not wish to do that, but that is what every other European nation would have done, as the hon. Member for Jarrow rightly said. The Government are in the business of bamboozling their own supporters as well as the employees of the shipyards involved. Those employees must be rightly furious at how they have been betrayed by the Government's announcement this afternoon.
The Government's whole procurement policy can be characterised in exactly the same way as the new Labour Administration can be characterised across the board. There is a facade that is initially and superficially attractive. However, once one looks behind that facade, one soon comes across the dry rot, the hypocrisy, the serious errors and—worse than that—the attempts to cover up those errors. When it comes to the high-profile, headline issues, everything seems fine. The Government are committed to the type 45 destroyers, to two new
480
carriers, to the A400M and to Meteor. We have supported those decisions—I see the Secretary of State nodding—but only so long as they get them right.
My hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green has asked a number of pertinent questions, not merely today but on previous occasions, about whether our continental partners will go ahead with projected orders for the A400M, and so forth—and, indeed, about how the type 45 destroyer procurement is proceeding. In principle, it sounds splendid. However, when one looks behind that, one sees not only great problems with individual items but that the Government have very cleverly so arranged things that they hardly have to spend one penny before the election. So, in fact, all the announcements of new orders and the comments on how they are minded to order this or that are hot air. We have yet to see any of it in reality.
When one goes behind such a facade into the day-to-day necessary procurement of equipment on which the effectiveness and lives of our fighting men and women will depend, one finds a very sad story of serious inadequacies and cover-ups. Let us look at the communications system for our combat aircraft. As we have seen in Kosovo, it is not compatible with the United States system.
Mr. Hoon: The Conservatives bought it.
Mr. Davies: The Secretary of State seems to think that every shortcoming in the services for which this Government have been responsible over the past three and a half years can somehow be laid at the door of the previous Conservative Government. We can all play that game; I could talk about the military inadequacies of the Government of Ramsay MacDonald. The fact is that the Secretary of State has responsibility and if he is to do something on the issue, he had better do it.
Mr. Hoon: I find the hon. Gentleman's observations absolutely astonishing. We have ordered secure air-to-air communications to replace the system that his Government purchased.
Mr. Davies: The system clearly is not in place at the moment.
What is more, the Secretary of State has been engaged in the GR1 to GR4 conversion programme. The matter has been in his hands for several years and he still has not got it right. Apparently, the software has still not been successfully integrated in order that GR4s can handle smart weaponry. After three and a half years, that is thoroughly unsatisfactory.
I know perfectly well that the need to replace Clansman has been with us for a long time, and do not doubt that serious errors were made by the previous Conservative Government. Heaven knows, my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green and I wrote a pamphlet during the previous Parliament criticising the defence policy of the then Administration, so we can hardly be expected now to say that everything that they did was perfect. The important thing is that this Government do not delude themselves, as they are trying to delude the public, that they do not have responsibility for anything because somebody 10 or 15 years ago may or may not have made some mistake. They have responsibility now, and must get things right.

481
The Government have been working with Archer Communications Systems for the past three and a half years and confirmed as recently as March that they believed that it was the right partner to deliver the new Bowman system. Now, they have cancelled the contract and pulled away, losing £200 million. Every penny of that has been lost under this Administration. If the Secretary of State disagrees with that, he should intervene to say so.
I must ask many other questions. What is happening about the Tucanos—the RAF basic trainer? We are told that they are grounded and that our pilots are being sent to Australia for training. The Tucano has been perfectly all right for the first three years of the Labour Government. Are the Government going to say that that situation is the fault of some previous Conservative Administration?
The C130Js have been suffering several problems. They were ordered by the Conservative Government, but who has had problems with them flying in the past few months? The Government have done nothing at all. They have taken delivery of the aircraft, which are clearly not performing properly at low speed and low altitude.
The sonars for the Navy are a serious matter. Everyone agrees that the sonar 2193 is necessary for the Hunt class minesweepers, but when is it due to come on stream? It is at least two years behind, under the Labour Government. The sonar 2087 for the type 23 frigates is an even more important matter. As Ministers ought to know, no 2031s were fitted on the last five of the type 23s, on the grounds that the 2087 was coming along so rapidly that it would not be necessary to fit the 2031. We now have five type 23s that have no stern sonars whatever. As those frigates are supposed to be the essence of our anti-submarine capability, that is thoroughly unsatisfactory.
A further issue is the Eurofighter and the Eurofighter cannon. It was always intended that the Eurofighter would be procured with a cannon, and the Government did not cancel the cannon for the first batch of 55 Eurofighters. However, they decided that the pilots would not be trained and there would be no back-up for the operation of the cannon. A remarkable piece of military hardware was procured by the decision of the previous Conservative Administration and the Government have taken delivery of it. but the cannon will be completely inoperable. Pilots will be put into the aircraft and told that they will never be able to use part of the weapon system that is fitted. This is another case in which Ministers have been a great deal less than frank.
I raised the matter at the last Defence questions with the Minister for the Armed Forces, who said that the Eurofighter was not intended to have a ground attack role. However, in a written answer to me shortly afterwards, he had to confess that the Eurofighter was, among other things, a successor to the Jaguar, which of course has a ground attack role.
I do not believe that Ministers have begun to think through the issue. No one suggests that a cannon is required in a conventional dogfight, but there are many situations in which a cannon is extremely useful—against transport aircraft, for example, or against helicopters. Ministers do not seem to realise that current warfare is somewhat different from warfare 50 or 100 years ago. Often, the state of belligerence is uncertain and the rules of engagement are less than would be expected in a full-scale war.
482
A potentially hostile aircraft may intrude across a particular line into our airspace and refuse to respond when challenged. It may not be practicable or politically desirable to order the aircraft to be brought down by a missile such as the advanced medium-range air-to-air missile—AMRAAM—the advanced short-range air-to-air missile—ASRAAM—or Meteor. A shot from a cannon—the traditional shot across the bows, so to speak—may be exactly the response that is needed.
That aircraft was built with a wide range of flexible options for combat use, but the Government have simply removed one of those. They pretend to the House and the public that no damage is done and it does not matter. It is absurd that the next batches of the Eurofighter Typhoon will have a lead weight to replace the cannon. In no circumstances can the removal of the cannon be justified by the other capabilities or the longer range that the aircraft can achieve as a result.
That is not a zero sum. It is a minus sum conclusion, which is typical of the Government's procurement policy. They thought that it was a small detail that no one would notice. When it came out, they used every trick—
Ms Squire: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Davies:—to try to deflect attention from the facts.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order.
Mr. Davies: That is all too typical—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. When the Chair takes a point of order, the hon. Gentleman must sit down at once.
Ms Squire: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have always understood that the time available at the end of a debate would be equally shared between the Opposition and the Government, but the Opposition spokesman has exceeded his time.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: In this instance, that is not the case.
Mr. Davies: Had the hon. Lady been better informed, she would have known that I was under instructions to speak until 6.45 pm, which I propose to do.
Over and over again, it is the same story. We have the spin, and over and over again the reality is different. The reality is tawdry. The reality is the Government's shortcomings, and the worst reality of all is the systematic way in which they try to cover them up.
6.45 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Dr. Lewis Moonie): My opportunity to reply to the debate seems to have been a long time coming. The argument of the shadow Secretary of State for Defence, the hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith), appears to be that basically, everything is all our fault, for taking so long to clear up the mess that the Conservative Government left us. That appears to be the logic of the arguments advanced by Opposition Members. I apologise; it is taking a long time to clear up the mess that they left us—but that is because the Conservative Government left us with such a mess.

483
Almost every system mentioned by the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies), who replied on behalf of the Opposition, was yet another painful example of the mess in which the previous Government left defence procurement. It is taking us longer than we might have hoped to clear things up. That is a sign of the magnitude of the task facing us.
In opening the debate, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State covered some very important ground. He spoke about how we are ensuring that our armed forces will continue to have the equipment that they need. He talked about what we are doing to address the problems of time and cost overruns that have bedevilled Ministry of Defence equipment programmes too often in the past.
My right hon. Friend described the scale of our investment in the future of our armed forces and in our economy. He highlighted many of the impressive programmes of new world-beating equipment which will be coming into service over the next few years. It is a matter of concern and regret to me that some hon. Members and parts of the media try to present a different picture—one that says that the equipment on which our armed forces depend is not up to the job. That is untrue. Our service men and women and their families deserve better than to have their confidence in their equipment undermined by inaccurate and misleading remarks.
Yes, we inherited problems with, for example, the Bowman project and the SA80 rifle. However, we are taking decisive action to sort them out. Those are the exceptions. The standard of our forces' equipment in general is overwhelmingly excellent.
Mr. Duncan Smith: Most of that was ordered by the previous Government, whom the Minister attacked.
Dr. Moonie: As well as apportioning blame, I am prepared to apportion credit. The hon. Gentleman is right. On some occasions the Conservative Government ordered things that worked well, and we are fortunate that they did. Many of the other things that they ordered have not worked quite so well.
Shortly, I shall move on to quickly cover as many points as I can. After an hour of questions from the hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green, I shall not be able to answer them all in 10 minutes. I shall ditch the rest of what I intended to say that was on the formal side. There is a two-day defence debate next week, and with a bit of luck I shall then have longer to cover various matters. If a Minister makes a habit of doing this, Members will always expect him to do so. In fact, he is summing up for the Government and not necessarily replying to the debate. However, I let that pass.
I shall deal first with the Defence Procurement Agency and the Defence Logistics Organisation. They are both relatively new organisations and it is interesting to speculate how things may emerge over time. There are no plans in progress to consider their position in the immediate future.
I shall now talk about the Brimstone weapon, and I shall occasionally refer to notes because that is much easier than trying to remember everything. We always keep the mix of weapons available to us under review.
484
We have reviewed the number of Brimstones that we require and we plan to buy 25 per cent. fewer. I think that I answered a question on the matter recently. There is still a firm requirement for the weapon. As Brimstone will be one of a number of anti-armour weapons available in a future conflict, including the attack helicopter and the MR anti-tank guided weapon, we have assessed that we shall need fewer Brimstones, hence the adjustment in the procurement. I am happy to say—even though the hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green will probably try to claim the credit again—that the Brimstone programme is on target and on cost.
I thought that I had adequately covered the subject of proposed reductions in squadrons of front-line aircraft during the broadcast a few weeks ago, but I shall reiterate. There was a study paper. We produce many such papers and many of them never see the light of day, which is fortunate, because we would be unable to comment properly on all of them, as happened in the case in question. The studies cover the full range of planned equipment capability and establish the scope or lack thereof for significant changes in our forward equipment plans. The paper was not seen by Ministers—at least, not until after it had been leaked.
I can confirm that no recommendations have been made to us, still less any decisions taken, to cut any of our fast jet fleets. It is impossible, and it would be irresponsible of me, to say that nothing will ever change. When Eurofighter is introduced, existing aeroplanes will be replaced. That is only logical—no one would expect us to keep obsolete equipment in service once the new aircraft was in operation. However, that issue will be examined at the proper time. The paper posed hypothetical questions; they will not be answered in the immediate future, but when Eurofighter is in service and it becomes necessary to make decisions on how to plan reductions in the alternative aircraft that we use.
I shall talk about the type 45 later. Several speakers referred to it, and I have some detailed notes further on in my script.
The failure of the Lynx helicopter rotor hub posed considerable problems. However, operational requirements are being met and, although people are having to queue up for training, they are being trained. A tremendous job of work is being done by the people replacing the defective part, and they deserve our congratulations.
We have every confidence that the SA80 upgrade plan will satisfy all the requirements. It is thought that some of the initial work might be done in Nottingham, but most will be carried out in the factory in Germany. After all, it is essential that the work be done as quickly as possible. I can tell my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Ms Ward) that we expect at least 20,000 weapons to have been fully modified and to be back in service by the end of next year, when I am sure they will make a considerable difference.
A difficult decision had to be made about the future missile, Meteor. There were many factors, especially the fact that smart procurement had identified a route through Meteor for procuring the missile which we thought produced considerable advantages for us, especially in terms of the balance of risk.
To digress for a moment, let me say that one of the major problems affecting large projects of the sort that we are discussing is the allocation of risk. Until the

485
introduction of smart procurement, which we hope is redressing the balance, the Government took all the risk. That cannot be right. I believe that smart procurement—smart acquisition, as I must learn to call it—will redress the balance and lay more of the risk where it belongs, on the contractors carrying out the development work for us. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Dr. Vis) has noticed that I have answered one of the points that he raised.
Progress is being made on the development of the A400M. I know of no snags, nor of cold feet affecting any of our partners, at the moment. We must expect progress to be slow at first and then to take off after the initial configuration and the initial agreements have been finalised. We are satisfied with the progress that is being made now.
OCCAR will offer considerable benefits to us in the medium to long term, providing a much more rational basis for the selection of projects, and allowing a multinational element and as much co-operation as is needed to ensure that highly complex and often expensive projects are brought to fruition in the minimum time.
We have not yet decided what form the sale of DERA will take. Hon. Members may say—as happened in an Adjournment debate shortly before the summer recess—that someone has told them that things are not very good and that they are not happy, but no one comes to us and says that. Therefore, we must assume that what the Americans are telling us is true and that they are happy with the system that we have proposed.
My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) said that hard decisions have to be made and, ideally, made quickly. However, a balance must be struck between wasting money through too early a cancellation and wasting it through too late a cancellation. Sometimes the balance of opinion, as in Bowman, is to carry on a little longer to try to obtain a satisfactory outcome. In other words, a bit of good money is thrown after what has gone before in the hope of a successful outcome. It is not all dead cost. People are employed using that money. The fact that the work does not ultimately come to fruition does not mean that the money was all thrown away or burned. It was spent on development and it kept people in employment, and we should not forget that. I hope that we shall be able to make an announcement soon on the chosen vehicle for producing the system.
The hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Keetch) referred to many problems. I have covered his points on smart procurement. I shall have to look into the matter of the floating dock. I did not think that we had any other docks floating around, but I am sure that someone will put me right and I shall be able to reply to the hon. Gentleman.
486
One of the major purchasing decisions of the next decade concerns the future large aircraft, along with the carriers. It is essential that we get that right. A huge sum of money will have to be spent. We are not yet in a position to make such a decision, but I hope that, during the next few years, as our debates on procurement evolve, so will our position on the purchase of such an aircraft.
The vertical communication system is based on the Duro vehicle which was proposed to the competitors because no other vehicle has the configuration to take the system and still be transportable by air.
Mr. Keetch: Will the Minister give way?
Dr. Moonie: I am sorry, but I do not have sufficient time.
The matter has been extensively investigated within and outside the EC and no equivalent vehicle of sufficient size is available. However, the vehicle will be sourced through a British distributor and spares will be purchased accordingly.
I join the hon. Gentleman in his congratulations to Swan Hunter. The news was excellent and I wish the yard a long and successful future. Its apprentices were mentioned, and that afforded me particular pleasure.
I must mention ro-ro ferries. The Opposition have created a smokescreen to try to conceal what is a good deal. We should not forget that as this is a PFI project, we are talking about a whole life cost. It will cost more than £900 million during its life, and there is no doubt that that offers a staggering saving over any of the other options. I suspect that that is why the previous Government intended to go down exactly the same route.
The ships will be built in Germany, not Poland. However, I do not see why we should object to Poles building them, as many hon. Members hope to welcome Poland into the EC. We should not forget that had we taken any other route, the cost would have been greater, and that would have meant less money to spend on something else.
I have the greatest of sympathy with those who will lose their jobs as a result of the decision on Bowman. We are aware of the problems that have been raised about Vospers, and we are considering them. So far, they are not sufficient to cause us anxiety. I believe that hon. Members are becoming over-anxious, but we will consider the matter closely. The problem with the contracting system is that one has to trust the system. We do not simply rely on people's word: we include checks to ensure that it is implemented properly.
It being Seven o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

War Graves Commission
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Dowd.]
7 pm
Mr. James Clappison: I am pleased to have an opportunity to raise a subject that is of great interest to my constituents and those of many other hon. Members. I know that it is of interest to the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay), who will make a brief intervention at the conclusion of my remarks, with your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I pay tribute to the work of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission and the men and women who work for it, including those who are employed as gardeners, especially the British gardeners. Those who visit the CWGC's many cemeteries all over the world are always struck by the fact that they are beautifully kept. I imagine that, over the years, many relatives of those who lie there have drawn comfort from that.
Many people who visit the cemeteries come into contact with the British gardeners. I have had that experience because in the summer of 1999, my family and I visited cemeteries around Vimy ridge and looked for the graves of two family members who were lost during the great war. We met and were helped by one of the commission's British gardeners. I can say from first-hand experience how helpful they are to visitors to the cemeteries.
British gardeners overseas play an important role in the upkeep of the cemeteries and the arrangements for them. I do not decry in any way the local gardeners who are employed by the commission. I pay tribute to their work and dedication. However, I believe that it is important to keep up the British connection, not least because the British gardeners are often responsible for the training and supervision of the local gardeners. The British gardeners have generally been trained in this country and they are therefore steeped in the high standards of British gardening. The existing arrangements work well.

Against that background, I want to speak about the changes in the allowance payments for the 70 or so British gardeners that the commission employs. The remuneration that they receive is fairly complicated and has to be viewed as a package. The changes that the commission has proposed are not to the gardeners' basic salary but to their overseas allowance, which is a substantial part of their income.
The Minister may be able to confirm that the majority of British gardeners will experience a reduction in their incomes as a result of the changes. Those suffering a reduction in incomes will include all the British gardeners who work in northern Europe. For some, the reduction will amount to as much as £7,500 a year, phased in by reductions of £1,500 a year. The commission admits that, last year, British gardeners earned between £19,000 and £29,000 in total through their basic pay and allowance. It is therefore clear that many gardeners face a substantial reduction in their income. They pay tax, or the equivalent of tax, on the basic pay component of their package.
In addition to the remuneration that I described, the gardeners receive an accommodation allowance of £6,000 a year. That reflects the fact that they can be—and often
488
are—required by the commission to move anywhere in the world. They also receive a boarding school allowance, of which few take advantage.
There has been some comment about remuneration. In view of the job that those involved do, this is not inordinate and I think they are worth every penny of it. That is my view; I suspect that it may be the view of many others. The key point is that the gardeners are facing a substantial reduction in their incomes. This amounts to a disturbance to the arrangements of care of the CWGC cemeteries. A Transport and General Workers Union survey suggested that 10 per cent. of the staff in question are already considering leaving the employment of the CWGC. I recently met Peter Magee, the head gardener at CWGC cemeteries around Hanover. He told me that since the proposals were announced by the commission, many staff had left.
Against that background, I welcome the setting up of an independent inquiry under Baroness Dean to look into the issues. I appreciate that these issues concern the CWGC. I appreciate the relationship between that body and the MOD and the fact that the Secretary of State is the chairman of the CWGC.
I wish to refer one or two matters to the Minister. Will he do all he can to ensure that the inquiry takes place before Remembrance Sunday? I hope that this is dealt with urgently, for obvious reasons. Is he in a position to put a figure on the savings that will be made by the commission as a result of the proposals? Above all else, will he give an assurance that he shares my concern about retaining the connection between the cemeteries and this country through the maintenance of the existing level of UK gardeners looking after the cemeteries? The British connection is very important and we should keep up the number of British gardeners looking after those cemeteries.
There is a great deal of public interest in this issue. I give credit to The Mirror for its extensive and excellent coverage of the issue. In my view, the existing arrangements have worked well. The cemeteries are beautifully kept and a fitting memorial to the brave men who lie in them. The cemeteries mean a great deal to many people in this country; they should matter to us all. I hope that all of those who come to decide about the future of the gardeners will remember that.
7.7 pm
Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: With the agreement of the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) and my hon. Friend the Minister—it was agreed that I could try to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker—I want to buttress the points made so effectively by the hon. Gentleman who initiated the debate, for which we should all be grateful.
At the invitation of my trade union, the TGWU, I went—at my own expense, incidentally—to Albert and Ypres in the summer to meet the trade union representatives, shop stewards and gardeners who are members of the TGWU and the civil service unions. The numbers of British expatriate staff have been eroded by a number of economic pressures. I wanted to share with them my fairly well-known interest in the Ypres salient and the first world war.
I was deeply concerned at the danger that if the reductions in the allowances are allowed to go ahead, it will accelerate the erosion or haemorrhaging of these

489
expatriate staff who, as the hon. Member for Hertsmere indicated, do more than gardening. They provide the essential Britishness of those wonderful cemeteries.
That has to be borne in mind by the chairman of the CWGC, and by the commission itself. It is essential that the allowance is maintained. The quality of the commitment given by the French, Belgian and German staff is second to none, but the British staff are able to communicate the standards that are expected and train the staff. I have to say that they are on relatively low pay. They are not seeking more. That which they have, they wish to hold. That is what each and every one of us in this place does. Members of the Government who were trade union officials know that that is a legitimate basic tenet.
We have stumbled into this situation with some carelessness. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will reassure us that Baroness Dean will complete her inquiry with the utmost expedition and that in the meantime there will be no movement on revising the terms and conditions of the staff. I hope that Baroness Dean will be able to take into account various factors, including the fact that spouses invariably have very low earning capacity, as they often have no command of the local language, and the fact that, although the children can go to school in the United Kingdom, that cannot be taken up by people on moderate or low pay, because of the on-costs.
My hon. Friend may say that the newspapers have exaggerated or misunderstood. With respect, the matter came to a head in the summer and assurances could and should have been given then. The Dean inquiry should not have been set up so late. This debate should not have been necessary.
We are looking with enthusiasm for my hon. Friend to redress the situation. The problem underscores the need for a veterans Minister, who could deal with many issues, such as Japanese prisoner-of-war camp survivors and Gulf war syndrome. We have seen for the best part of today that my hon. Friend has other things on his plate. I hope that he will deal with this matter and that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will reflect on the Royal British Legion's request to have a dedicated veterans Minister. That would help us to avoid such misunderstandings in the future.
7.12 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Dr. Lewis Moonie): I congratulate the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) on securing this debate. I welcome the opportunity to pay tribute to the service men and women of the Empire and Commonwealth who gave their lives during the two world wars; to express the Government's appreciation of the splendid work done by the Commonwealth War Graves Commission in maintaining their graves and memorials; and to correct some errors and misapprehensions that have abounded in recent months.
The hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) made some specific points. On the timing of the inquiry, we would have hoped to finish it as early as possible, but it will not be possible to complete it by 11 November. We felt strongly that Baroness Dean was the most suitable person to conduct the inquiry. Unfortunately, there are time constraints and people are not always available early on to give quite as
490
much of their time as one would have hoped. The inquiry will be completed as expeditiously as possible within those constraints. I can also confirm that there will be no movement on allowances until this matter has been resolved.
I do not have a figure for the savings, but I can easily find it and supply it to the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Iain Duncan Smith rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. Adjournment debates are not for interventions from Front-Bench spokesmen.
Dr. Moonie: The scale of the sacrifice made by the armed forces of the Empire and Commonwealth during the world wars is overwhelming. The Commonwealth War Graves Commission maintains over 1.179 million war graves at 23,204 burial sites in 146 countries and commemorates a further 761,000 war dead on memorials to the missing. It is both our duty and our privilege to ensure that the memory of all those who gave their lives is honoured in perpetuity. For more than 80 years, that duty has been faithfully carried out by the CWGC. I can give a cast-iron guarantee tonight that that will remain its sole objective and that nothing will be allowed to diminish it, now or in the future.
Most people will have a clear mental picture of a typical war graves cemetery, with row on row of clean white headstones, neatly trimmed grass and carefully tended flowers, shrubs and trees. They are a regular sight on our televisions at this time of year, and will be familiar to anyone who, like me, has travelled in the areas of intense fighting, such as northern France and Flanders. Those of us who have visited a war graves cemetery and seen the work of the CWGC at close hand will have a still clearer appreciation of its quality, and will also have experienced the sympathetic and helpful attitude of the CWGC staff.
Gardening has always been an essential part of the CWGC's work. Even before the commission was formally set up in 1917, the Army graves registration commission was trying to make burial grounds on the western front less bleak by growing grass, flowers, shrubs and trees in them. As the work of the CWGC evolved after the first world war, architects and horticulturists worked closely together on the overall design of cemeteries. The aim behind the design of a war graves cemetery is to give the effect of a garden rather than the usual concept of a cemetery, and to combine the various elements in a way that will help the visitor to achieve a sense of peace in a beautiful and serene setting.
There have recently been reports in the press that the British expatriate gardeners employed by the CWGC are facing pay cuts. It has been repeatedly alleged that that is the result of Ministry of Defence penny-pinching. It has been claimed that the gardeners' livelihoods are threatened, and even that this is a ploy to get rid of British gardeners and replace them with cheaper local staff, even though, for as long as anyone can remember, the gardens have been tended by a mixture of local and British staff.
The fear has been spread that this will result in the disappearance of friendly faces at CWGC cemeteries overseas, and that standards of maintenance will fall.

491
These reports have led to a flow of letters from members of the public, who are understandably concerned and disgusted by what has been presented as a betrayal of our war dead. However, their concern is based on false information. Both the CWGC and the Ministry of Defence have made efforts to put the record straight, including interviews and letters to the press, but reporting on this issue remains grossly distorted.
I shall deal first with the most important element of this issue, which has unfortunately caused a degree of alarm due to erroneous reporting—the question whether the high standards of maintenance and the observance of care and attention, and the respect that we are used to affording our war dead, are jeopardised by any form of allowance changes, or changes in resource allocations, or any other form of budget changes.
The answer to that question is no. This Government will not do anything that could be construed as failing to ensure that our war dead are not properly commemorated, honoured and respected. Equally, the commission has given an absolute assurance that the high standards at cemeteries and memorials around the world will be maintained. I hope that this reiteration of our position will reassure relatives and all of us who are eager to ensure that we meet fully our moral responsibilities towards those service men and women who gave their lives for the sake of others.
It may be helpful if I outline the official position of the Ministry of Defence in its relations with the CWGC. The commission is a Commonwealth organisation established by royal charter. Although my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence is its chairman, and the hon. Members for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) and for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding) are on its board, it is not a branch or agency of the Ministry of Defence, and the British Government do not control its organisation or internal affairs.
Mr. Clappison: Before the Minister speaks about the structure of the CWGC, is he able to give the reassurance that I seek about the British connection with regard to those who look after the cemeteries? Will the number of British gardeners involved in the care of the cemeteries be maintained? I think that that question also concerns the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay).
Dr. Moonie: I shall come to that point a little later.
Mr. Mackinlay: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Dr. Moonie: Very well.
Mr. Mackinlay: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, as I have question about misleading information on the CWGC's website. I fully accept that he and the Ministry of Defence have acted wholly honourably in this matter. He said that misleading information had been published in the national press in this country, yet the CWGC's website states:
All this is tax free and represents a very generous package in recognition of the excellent work they carry out.
However, the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) has pointed out that the package is not tax free, and that a payment in lieu of tax is involved.
492
The CWGC—not my hon. Friend the Minister, nor the Ministry—has therefore aggravated the situation and deliberately misled people.
Dr. Moonie: Had my hon. Friend been a little more patient, he would have found that I was coming on to that very point. Just in case I forget, let me say in passing that the figures that were quoted for total income are net of the contribution made in lieu of income tax. So the figure that the hon. Member for Hertsmere gave me as gardeners' total remuneration is not subjected to any further deduction. 1 can give him that absolute guarantee.
The proposed changes to the remuneration of the gardeners have been reported, among other descriptions, as
the work of MOD pen-pushers trying to please their masters by shaving a few bob off the War Graves Commission budget.
That is totally untrue. The six member Governments who are represented on the commission contribute to costs in proportion to the number of graves of their war dead. The United Kingdom bears nearly 78 per cent. of the cost, which currently amounts to some £24 million. This money is paid by the Ministry of Defence as a grant in aid. There are no plans to change this arrangement, nor to reduce the level of our funding.
This is not a pay cut, of course, and I fully accept that the hon. Member for Hertsmere made no attempt to describe it as such. In other words, although the gardeners' pay is not being affected, the total remuneration package is. I would not try to pretend otherwise. I am not simply splitting hairs. A pay cut, to most people in my constituency, has a very specific meaning—it implies a cut in salary, not in allowances.
The proposed changes are to local allowances and affect all the CWGC's United Kingdom-based staff serving overseas, not just the gardeners. The allowances are intended to enable these staff to maintain a standard of living broadly equivalent to that which they would have in the United Kingdom. The CWGC's local allowances were based on the United Kingdom civil service cost of living allowance—COLA—with modifications to suit staff's individual circumstances.
In 1998, the need arose to change the arrangements because there were no longer civil service-wide rates of COLA on which the allowances could be based. In common with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Ministry of Defence and the British Council, the CWGC decided to use a human resource consultancy to provide cost of living data on which new arrangements could be based. The consultants created a shopping basket system, weighted according to purchasing patterns drawn from the United Kingdom family expenditure survey. From cost of living surveys carried out twice a year, the consultants produce an index of the percentage difference in the cost of living between the United Kingdom and the host country. The index is applied to spendable income to produce the cost of living uplift required for everyday expenses.
Mr. John Cryer rose—
Dr. Moonie: In addition to the COLA element, local allowances under the new system will include a child addition, a telephone addition, a utilities element and an expatriate allowance. It is wrong to suggest that the

493
United Kingdom-based gardeners overseas will be unable to maintain a decent standard of living under the proposed arrangements. The CWGC employs 67 United Kingdom-based gardeners out of a total gardening staff of nearly 900. The nine most junior earn between £18,000 and £20,000 a year. Another 28 earn between £20,000 and £25,000, and the remaining 30 earn between £25,000 and £29,000.
In addition, an accommodation allowance of up to £6,000 is paid, and those wishing to educate their children in the United Kingdom, as is common for expatriate staff, receive a boarding school allowance of up to £16,000 for each child. In every case, basic pay and allowances are tax-free. As I have said, the total figure is produced net because account is taken of the deduction that has already been made.
Mr. Cryer: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Dr. Moonie: No, I am sorry, I do not have time.
By comparison, a gardener working in the west midlands earns about £13,000 a year before tax, and about £9,600 after tax deductions. Even after the proposed reductions, expatriate gardeners undoubtedly have considerably more take-home income than gardeners in the United Kingdom.
As local allowances are designed to maintain a United Kingdom standard of living, they will vary with changes in exchange rates and in local costs of living. Some changes will be upwards and some downwards. The examples that have been quoted in the press are at the end of the downward spectrum.
The impact of the new system varies from an annual increase of £4,500—admittedly for very few staff—to a decrease of £7,500, depending on location and individual circumstances. A great part of that reduction is due to the strength of sterling and would also have occurred under the old system.
I do not think that anyone present is suggesting that allowances for currency fluctuations should not be made periodically. That has always been the accepted practice. To be fair, the deductions are largely being caused by the currency fluctuations. To ease the transition, the CWGC proposes to phase the reductions over a period so that no one's income will be reduced by more than £1,500 in any one year. Admittedly, that is a substantial sum.
There is no truth in the suggestion that the commission is trying to drive out the British gardeners and replace them with cheaper substitutes. As I said, even under the new arrangements the net income of an expatriate gardener will compare favourably with what he might receive for similar work at home.
The CWGC has refuted any suggestion that future standards will be jeopardised by a revision of the allowance system. Maintenance of the graves and memorials to the highest standards and a sympathetic and helpful approach to visitors are at the very heart of theworking ethos of CWGC staff, whatever their nationality.
The expatriate British gardeners undoubtedly deserve the greatest credit for the standard of their work, but the suggestion that only they have the skills and dedication to maintain that standard is an insult to the many indigenous gardeners we employ through the commission. At many
494
cemeteries, in particular in Italy, there are no British gardeners. One is not suggesting that they are not maintained to the same standards.
Mr. Clappison indicated dissent.
Dr. Moonie: I am not suggesting for a moment that the hon. Gentleman suggested that. I am referring to many of the inaccurate reports that have appeared in the past few weeks, which have served only to upset people unnecessarily. One of my colleagues was telephoned by a woman who was in tears because of the effect that the changes would have on her husband's grave, which is in Italy in a cemetery where there are no British gardeners anyway. That is the sort of disturbance that inaccurate reporting produces. It is not helpful to people who may well have a good cause. That is why we are pleased to be able to say that the commission has agreed to an independent inquiry into the procedures, to find out whether they are fair and justified and what should be done, under the chairmanship of Baroness Dean.
Mr. Clappison: Is the Minister now in a position to give me the assurance that I was seeking about maintaining the British connection in the number of British gardeners looking after the cemeteries?
Dr. Moonie: Clearly, the gardeners do not work for me, so I cannot give a guarantee. However, the commission has told us that it has no plans to reduce the number of British gardeners working abroad. [Interruption.] The shadow defence spokesman, the hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith), may sneer, but one has to take the word of people when they are asked whether they intend to do something. I am satisfied that their intentions in this case are honourable, whatever the effects of their acts might be.
We have announced that the commission has decided to hold an independent review of the pay and allowances of the gardeners and other UK-based staff overseas. There will be full consultation with the staff and their representatives. Any changes will be delayed until the review has been completed. I am glad that a woman of such experience as Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde is to conduct the inquiry for us.
The commission and its staff do a superb job in maintaining the war grave cemeteries and so perpetuating the memory of the fallen. Both this Government and the commission will ensure that that remains the case.
We welcome the review, which will help to ensure that the public have confidence that the highest standards will be maintained in faithfully meeting our moral responsibilities, and that all those involved are fairly rewarded. It would be in the best interests of the review to allow it to be conducted as expeditiously as possible and, preferably, without any further external pressure and misrepresentation.
Once again, I congratulate the hon. Member for Hertsmere on securing this debate and I hope that I have managed to provide him with the limited reassurances that I have been able to give.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past Seven o'clock.

Preamble
[SIR ALAN HASELHURST in the Chair]

Double Jeopardy Rule
[Relevant documents: Third report from the Home Affairs Committee Session 1999–2000 HC190.]
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]
2.30 pm
Mr. Robin Corbett: This is the first time that we have had a debate in this Chamber on a report from the Select Committee on Home Affairs, and I confess that this is the first time that I have taken part in a debate in the different atmosphere created by the shape of this Chamber. I very much welcome it. The third report of the Home Affairs Committee on "The Double Jeopardy Rule" is unusual in several ways. It is a response to a consultation paper from the Law Commission. We did not take evidence directly from the Government, although we heard some helpful evidence from the Director of Public Prosecutions. We have not sought a Government response because that will have to await the Law Commission's final recommendations.
The Law Commission's thinking has moved on a little since its consultation paper in October 1999, and perhaps the Minister of State, Home Office my right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng), will tell us what the Home Office thinks about that.
The proposal to relax the double jeopardy rule in specific circumstances goes back to the Stephen Lawrence inquiry. The House will recall that, following a bungled police inquiry, a private prosecution of those who were alleged to have murdered Stephen Lawrence failed. Under the double jeopardy rule, anyone acquitted cannot be tried again for the same offence. The Macpherson report recommended that
consideration should be given to the Court of Appeal being given power to permit prosecution after acquittal where fresh and viable evidence is presented.
The Home Secretary then referred the matter to the Law Commission, which published a closely argued consultation paper in October 1999. It proposed that the High Court should be able to quash a conviction and order a retrial on the grounds of new evidence, subject to several conditions: first, if the defendant were convicted of the offence now alleged, the sentence would probably be of a specified minimum severity; secondly, if the new evidence makes the prosecution's case substantially stronger than at the first trial; thirdly, if there is a very high probabililty of the defendant being convicted at retrial; fourthly, if the defendant has not previously been acquitted of the offence at a trial held by virtue of this exception to the double jeopardy rule; fifthly, if the new evidence could not, with due diligence, have been adduced at the first trial; and finally, if the court is satisfied that, in all the circumstances of the case, it is in the interests of justice to quash the acquittal.
116WH
The Committee asked itself the following questions. Does the public interest in convicting the guilty outweigh the longstanding principle of double jeopardy? Does the availability of new evidence arising largely from scientific advance mean that an old and fundamental principle should be re-examined? If changes are to be made, would the proposed safeguards be sufficient to ensure that the new procedure would be used only in exceptional cases? Would a change of rule ensure that fair second trials could be held, and that people would be convicted?
The Committee took evidence in January and February this year and received 18 memorandums from civil liberty groups, lawyers and the police. We also heard oral evidence from the Director of Public Prosecutions and the chief constable of Kent on behalf of the Association of Chief Police Officers, barristers and solicitors. We had a useful and informal meeting with the Law Commission. The exercise was carried out in collaboration with the Law Commission, and we are grateful for its co-operation.

Our report was published in May this year. It was a finely balanced inquiry. It had to be for us to conclude, as we did, that a double jeopardy rule that dated back to Roman times and had been in the common law since the 19th century should be altered. It was our view that the public would not understand the notion that a suspect should be able to avoid trial on some of the most serious criminal offences even if compelling new evidence became available after a first trial and acquittal, and perhaps even after a subsequent confession.
Advances in DNA technology enable the analysis of a blood sample to demonstrate with near certainty that an acquitted person has been at the scene of the crime, even if that has been denied and could not be proved at trial. In addition, the Director of Public Prosecutions told us about advances in fingerprinting, photographic recognition, corneal and face mapping and even, unbelievably, reliable ear prints. There have also been cases in which the prime suspect was not prosecuted because of lack of evidence but was convicted years later after scientific information made the original evidence more compelling. We were referred to two particular cases—the case of the beauty in the bath and the murder of Dr. Joan Francisco. If the criminals in question had been tried and acquitted earlier, they would have remained free and guilty. We were told of at least seven press reports published in the past two years about people who, having once been acquitted of a serious offence, subsequently confessed their guilt under the safety of the current double jeopardy rule.
Mr. Desmond Browne: I commend my hon. Friend and his Committee on their report, which I read with great interest. He mentioned a question that is at the heart of our discussion. Just how useful would the change be in addressing the perceived wrong? As my hon. Friend said, the Committee took evidence from the Director of Public Prosecutions. When the initial part of that evidence was heard, my hon. Friend pressed the DPP to identify from his own records or information the number of cases to which the change would be applied. He could not produce any numbers—I understand why that might have happened—and promised to write back to the

117WH
Committee with information. However, there is no sign in the report that he did so. Did he write back, and, if so, what information did he provide?
Mr. Corbett: I thank my hon. Friend for that question. As far as I can remember, the DPP did not write back, although we received information via another route. From memory, I think that the chief constable of Kent, speaking on behalf of ACPO, referred to about three dozen cases in respect of which the proposed amendment of the double jeopardy rule would provide confidence that convictions could be obtained, especially in the light of DNA advances.
We were told of at least seven press reports in the past two years about people who had been acquitted but had subsequently confessed their guilt. That is precisely what offends public interest and collides with what the DPP, Mr. David Calvert-Smith, told us was an underlying principle of our legal system. He said:
The whole point of a criminal justice system is to bring criminals to justice.
Our views were set against the background of the common law rule that, once acquitted, a person cannot be tried again for the same offence. It is, however, worth recalling that a convicted person has the right to present fresh evidence to the Court of Appeal or to the Criminal Cases Review Commission, in order to seek to overturn the conviction. Where convictions are found to be unsafe, it is right that they should be overturned. On the other side of the coin, however, why should someone who is tried on inadequate evidence and then acquitted be protected from a second trial when compelling new evidence points to guilt? Victim Support told us:
The law must be concerned to prevent Miscarriages of justice to the defendant and also to the victim.
Dr. Stephen Ladyman: Is not the right way to handle such cases not to proceed to court in the first place until the Director of Public Prosecutions is relatively content that he has a strong case?
Mr. Corbett: I thank my hon. Friend for his question. If only life were that simple. However, it is not. My hon. Friend will know as well as I do that the DPP and his staff take as much care as possible when examining files containing all the evidence presented to them by the police in order to make a judgment on the likelihood of obtaining a prosecution. Those judgments are the best that can be made.
The advance in DNA technology makes it possible later on, as the years roll by, to discover evidence that was hidden at the original trial and acquittal.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. From a technical point of view, it would be helpful if the hon. Gentleman would direct his remarks to the Chair, because when he turns away from the microphone the technicians must make alternative arrangements. We want to ensure that all his words are recorded.
Mr. Corbett: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
118WH
There has, understandably, been opposition to our views from the Criminal Bar Association, the Law Society and Liberty, among others, as well as a critical early-day motion tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman). I shall deal directly with some of these objections.
Mr. Andrew Trollope, who chaired a Criminal Bar Association working party on the subject, told us:
There is a burden on the State, which has hugely more resources
than any individual, when they start the investigation, to conduct it with due diligence and not to put a person on trial until such time as they have gathered in all the evidence that they competently and properly can.
That was the point made by my hon. Friend. I accept that, but, as I said a few moments ago, it fails to acknowledge that, even with due diligence, scientific advances—such as those made with DNA—can reveal evidence that was earlier hidden.
Liberty told us that the prospect of a further trial after an acquittal
would cause needless anxiety and insecurity to thousands of acquitted defendants.
David Calvert-Smith, the Director of Public Prosecutions, had a response to that when he said:
No judge would ever allow the prosecution a second bite at the cherry to make up for police incompetence at the first trial; it would be inconceivable.
In any event, the fairness of a possible second trial would have to be argued before a court, and a judge could decide in certain circumstances that that second trial could not be justified.
Dr. Ladyman: Has my hon. Friend not touched on an important point? If we step on to that slippery slope, will that not be exactly the sort of argument that comes back to us in a few years' time, when someone says, "We should have another trial, if the police were incompetent in the first place"? We might then gradually relax the double jeopardy rule until we automatically had another trial whenever we failed to obtain a conviction.
Mr. Corbett: My hon. Friend is right to raise those concerns, but he must understand, as we reflect on the report, that it is not simply a matter of the police, a few months or years down the road, deciding that they want to have another go at a case. They would have to persuade the Court of Appeal that the acquittal should be set aside, and that it would be in the public interest to bring a second prosecution. If my hon. Friend will bear with me, I shall come to the matter of so-called due diligence in just a moment.
The Law Society argued that there would be a
real risk of the jury at the retrial assuming that the new evidence must be reliable and that the defendant must be guilty.
Again, Mr. David Calvert-Smith was able to help. This comment, made by the director on the basis of his experience before the courts over many years, was compelling and allayed some of my worries. He said:
There have been a number of very dramatic examples in recent years where trials, or retrials, ordered by the Court of Appeal have taken place in circumstances in which, had the jury read the judgement of the Court of Appeal, they would have no doubt whatever, at the start of the trial, that the defendant was guilty. But the trial has been fair because jurors do, in fact, now obey the directions of judges and focus on the evidence.

119WH
Although I am not a lawyer, and do not claim to understand such matters in detail, I was interested to hear him expand on that point later. He said that during all his experience at the criminal bar, whatever background knowledge about a trial jurors take into the jury box with them, soon after the trial begins they focus on the arguments that are put to them as it unfolds.
In his early-day motion, my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet called the recommendations "deeply flawed" and argued that they may
allow some apparent injustices to be addressed in the short term but would lead to far more and far greater injustices in the long term.
It is important that all views are considered during the debate, but I feel that my colleagues may have overlooked the need to prevent miscarriages of justice for victims or their families.
The Law Commission originally suggested that the exception to the double jeopardy rule should apply only to offences likely to attract sentences of at least three years. The Committee took the view that it should apply only to offences for which a life sentence was available, such as robbery, aggravated burglary, causing grievous bodily harm, supply of class A drugs, manslaughter, rape and arson.
The chairman of the Law Commission recently wrote to the Committee to say that it has revised its views in the light of the consultation exercise and considers that the exception to the double jeopardy rule should apply only to charges of murder and reckless killing, under its separate proposals on involuntary manslaughter. That may go some way to addressing my hon. Friend's concerns. The commission has not reached a firm view on the matter, and will be interested to hear hon. Members' reactions in the course of the debate.
Returning to my hon. Friend's point, the Law Commission has also modified its views on whether the quality of the original police investigation should influence the decision as to whether a second trial could be held. The original suggestion was that new evidence could not be used to justify a second trial if a reasonably competent police investigation should have turned it up in the first place. The underlying idea was that it would be unfair to try someone again on evidence that, but for police incompetence, would have been available at the earlier trial. It could be argued that giving the police a second bite of the cherry in that way would encourage them to be less diligent on the first occasion.
The Committee was persuaded by the evidence from the chief constable of Kent, on behalf of ACPO, that the procedures for police investigations are now much more rigorous than they used to be, and that the possibility of a second trial would not make the original investigation less assiduous. We therefore thought that the so-called due diligence test was not an appropriate requirement for a second trial. Paragraph 36 of our report states:
If a second trial is ruled out because police incompetence had failed in the first, the only winner is the guilty. The victim or the victim's family are left doubly denied justice.
The Law Commission now suggests that the diligence of the police should be taken into account but should not be an absolute requirement.
It is for those and other reasons, which will be argued by my colleagues, that the Committee came to the conclusion that there should be these narrow and
120WH
specific exceptions to the general double jeopardy rule. Given the proposed safeguards, we felt that that would strike a better balance between the rights of the defendant, the rights of victims and their families and the overall interests of justice. We do not expect—and do not believe that judges would allow—such a change to be used in many cases. However, if it were used, it would bring justice to victims and their families, which is now denied.
Few, if any, proposals about criminal justice pass through the House without lively debate, and I am sure that these will be no exception. I look forward to hearing those views and the Government's initial response to them.
2.49 pm
The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Paul Boateng): Like all hon. Members present, I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) and his colleagues on the Home Affairs Select Committee for the diligent manner in which they reviewed this issue and their positive contribution to the debate. It is a welcome fact that the relatively novel procedure—in parliamentary terms—of debating in Westminster Hall enables us to visit this topic in the context of the Home Affairs Committee's report. Of course, we are grateful to the Law Commission for taking on the important task of reviewing the double jeopardy rule, and for the detailed and careful way in which it has done so.
My hon. Friend the Member for Erdington referred to Sir William Macpherson's report on the Stephen Lawrence inquiry. Sir William posed the question whether the law should provide absolute—I stress, absolute—protection for someone who has been acquitted of an offence, even if fresh and viable evidence that the acquittal was an injustice emerges after the trial. We are addressing that important question today, and I want to say a few words at the outset about our response to the inquiry report.
A lot of good work has been taken forward in the 20 months since the report was published. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has established, and chairs, a steering group that is tasked to audit and oversee implementation of his action plan, which will advance the recommendations in Sir William Macpherson's report. The first annual progress report indicated that more than half the 70 recommendations had already been implemented, and work is well under way on the others. We recognise the importance of maintaining that momentum, which includes consideration of the double jeopardy rule.
The Stephen Lawrence inquiry report recommended that consideration be given to empowering the court of appeal to permit prosecution after acquittal where fresh and viable evidence is presented. The Government accepted that recommendation, and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary immediately referred the proposals to the Law Commission, so that it might review them and consideration might therefore take place. It is an important and significant area of the law, and we have made it clear that the Government will take no decisions on the merits of relaxing the law on double jeopardy until the Law Commission has made its final report, which is expected early next year. However, I

121WH
welcome the opportunity to debate the issue at this stage. In reaching a decision on whether a change in the law is desirable, we believe it important that we get the law right.
I do not doubt that comments made in this Chamber, the Home Affairs Committee's response to the recommendation and the interim response to the Law Commission review will help to generate debate among the wider public. With the greatest of respect to m' learned friends, it is important that this debate is not confined simply to lawyers. We have our own traditions, interests and understandable concerns about legal developments in an area in which we practise. However, it is important that lay people should not feel in any way inhibited about making a contribution—indeed, a robust and considered contribution—to the debate. [Interruption.] I see that some are already beginning to shake their heads; I know not whether in dissent or despair.
Mr. Robert Marshall-Andrews: I shall rise to that bait: despair is the answer. Will my right hon. Friend accept that many lawyers have a legitimate interest in the debate because we are concerned with the civil liberties of the subject, not because we are lawyers but because we are involved, day by day, in precisely that matter?
Mr. Boateng: Of course I accept that, but lay members also have concerns about civil liberties—those of victims and defendants alike. I argue only that it is important that we hear, and that lay people feel equally empowered to contribute to the debate. Those of us who are lawyers should not think that we have a monopoly of wisdom on this subject, or a monopoly of concern about civil liberties.
Mr. David Winnick: I accept that lawyers do not have a monopoly of wisdom in this, or perhaps any other, case, and with due modesty I am sure that all the lawyers here would agree. Since a point has been made about civil liberties, would my right hon. Friend bear it in mind that, when it comes to murder, the very life of a person is taken away—leaving aside the feelings of the immediate family after such a disaster? Surely the whole purpose of justice is that those who take life should face justice and be duly punished if found guilty.
Mr. Boateng: That is a view that will resonate with many—lawyers and non-lawyers—and is a legitimate point to make in a debate such as this. We shall take into account the views set out in the Select Committee report and those expressed by hon. Members in the debate.
I shall not take up much time in setting out the detailed background of our proposals. My hon. Friend the Member for Erdington has already ably covered that territory, but it is important to state that we have not reached any conclusions on the issue. I am primarily here to listen—a disappointment to some and a relief to many—rather than to express a view at this stage on the Government's behalf.
To deal briefly with the issue of principle that is at the heart of the Lawrence inquiry's proposals, the double jeopardy rule is a long-standing part of our criminal law.
122WH
It dates back to the 12th century and provides that someone cannot be retried for the same offence or a different offence that is based on the same, or substantially the same, facts if he or she has previously been acquitted, or indeed convicted, of that offence. I know that there are many who have genuine concerns about the issue, on both sides of the debate. Some, I know, believe that removing that absolute protection would erode the status of an acquittal, so that trials ending in acquittal would be provisional, pending further inquiry and the discovery of new evidence. That point was ably made in an intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Erdington.
The principle of finality for the defendant is clearly important, but there is, also, a competing principle—it was referred to by other hon. Members—which is that criminals should be brought to justice. That principle should be given careful consideration to establish whether an imbalance exists and, if so, how best it might be dealt with.
In recent years, there has rightly been concern about serious miscarriages of justice involving the wrongful conviction of defendants. Parliament has responded by reforming the procedures for reviewing appeals, with the creation of an independent Criminal Cases Review Commission. That is something that many in this Room, myself among them, long campaigned for. The commission may review cases, including new evidence that might have emerged since the trial and that might cast doubt on the safety of the conviction. Where the commission considers that there is a real possibility that the conviction might not be upheld, it has the power to refer the case to the court of criminal appeal. That court may, after reviewing the evidence, quash the conviction on the grounds that it is unsafe.
We have an extraordinary procedure for the review of criminal convictions outside the normal time limits, with the determination subject to the supervision of the appellate courts. In contrast, if a victim believes that there has been a wrongful acquittal, there is no mechanism for correcting that miscarriage. The prosecution has no right to reinstate proceedings apart from the narrow circumstances where it can be established that the conviction has been tainted as a result of jury or witness nobbling. The prosecution also has no right of appeal against judicial decisions that lead to termination of proceedings. The Government have asked the Law Commission to look at both those issues to see whether the law strikes the right balance.
It is extremely difficult for any of us who have not been there to understand the anguish that victims and their families feel when there is no satisfactory resolution to a case. We can but admire their courage and determination to seek justice. I do not know whether any other hon. Members were present, but I can well remember a meeting of victims we held in this Room. The anger, sadness and frustration of those people, many of whom had had to live through the loss of a loved one, were heart rending.
The distress can be even greater if, following an acquittal, new evidence comes to light to prove that the accused was guilty of the crime. There have been instances of criminals admitting in their memoirs to crimes for which they were acquitted and thereby

123WH
profiting. Earlier this summer, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary met the family of Julie Hogg, who was brutally murdered in 1989, to discuss this issue.
Julie's killer, Billy Dunlop, was formally acquitted of her murder in 1991 after two juries had failed to reach verdicts, but while serving a prison sentence for an unconnected assault he confessed that he had lied on oath during the earlier court proceedings and that he had murdered Julie. He pleaded guilty to perjury in April of this year but could not be retried for Julie's murder because of the double jeopardy rule. For her family, the belief that he quite literally "got away with murder" made a grievous blow even harder to bear.
That is clearly the type of case we shall want to consider in weighing the importance of the double jeopardy principle in protecting the rights of the defendant against repeated prosecutions, against the need to ensure that guilty people do not escape justice.
Dr. Ladyman: Given the case that my right hon. Friend has just outlined where someone was prosecuted for perjury, would a way of dealing with this without tampering with the double jeopardy law be to make the same sentence available for a trial for perjury where perjury was used to avoid a guilty conviction at the original trial?
Mr. Boateng: It is one way. But for the families, someone being found guilty of perjury does not have the same ring as being found guilty of murder. One should never underestimate—I am sure that as a practitioner in the courts my hon. Friend does not do so—the importance of the symbolism of the charge and a guilty verdict. We do not engage in this simply for the sake of form; we do so because words and actions carry their own power. Being guilty of murder is different from being guilty of perjury.
Mr. Winnick: If it so happened that some of those acquitted for the murder of Stephen Lawrence were charged and found guilty of perjury, and only perjury, what would Mr. and Mrs. Lawrence think about that?
Mr. Boateng: I am not sure that I would want to speculate on that. I repeat my point that for the families of victims the conviction for the charge in many instances is as important as the length of any sentence served. We are determined to ensure that greater account is taken of the interests of victims while maintaining the rights of defendants in the criminal justice system.
We are concerned not only with victims, important though they are, but with the right of the wider community to see that justice is done. With the scientific advances in DNA testing, there is increasing potential for fresh and viable evidence to emerge, which will result in retrials only if there is an exemption to the double jeopardy rule.
In response to the Home Secretary's request, the Law Commission published a detailed consultation paper last year on its proposals for changes to the double jeopardy rule. Broadly speaking, it proposed that the rule should be retained except in cases in which compelling new evidence becomes available. The Select Committee came to a similar conclusion—that there is a
124WH
strong case for the relaxation of the double jeopardy rule if new evidence makes the previous acquittal unsafe. We shall take into account the Select Committee's support for reform in reaching our conclusions on the issue. I look forward to hearing the views of others during the debate.
When referring to the law on double jeopardy, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State asked the Law Commission to consider, as part of the review, our international obligations, to ensure that any proposals for change were compatible with those obligations. The Law Commission's consultation paper helpfully set out the background to the issue, including how other criminal jurisdictions approached that difficult matter. Apart from the principle involved, the commission recognised that any changes would need to be subject to safeguards. Therefore it sought views on a number of practical issues, including what offences would be subject to the relaxed rule, whether there should be a due diligence test requiring that the new evidence could not have been adduced at the first trial had the police and prosecution shown due diligence and whether the exception to the rule should have a retrospective effect.
I am aware of anxieties that relaxation of the double jeopardy rule might result in less diligent police investigations; I note that the Select Committee, importantly, concluded that it did not expect that such changes to the law would have an adverse impact on the quality of further police investigation.
Mr. Browne: Before my right hon. Friend moves too far from the issue of our international obligations, which have been incorporated into our country's law, I ask him to consider a small point that troubles me about the proposal, as I am not entirely satisfied that the Law Commission has resolved it. It is not whether we have to retain the double jeopardy rule and allow exceptions in terms of the protocol, but whether our own courts would be in breach of article 6 of the European convention on human rights, which requires trials to be concluded within a reasonable time. That reasonable time cannot be concluded until determination, and determination must mean something; if the double jeopardy rule is not in existence potentially for any case of the nature to which my right hon. Friend refers, those cases could never be considered to be determined on one view.
Without making the intervention into a speech, I want to say that England and Wales have limited experience of the convention being in force. Scotland has longer experience and some decisions in Scotland refer to European jurisprudence on the issue. Has my right hon. Friend anything to say about that?
Mr. Boateng: We will reflect on that matter as part of our consideration of the points made by hon. Members in the debate. I would expect the Law Commission to do likewise in finalising its views on the matter.
We must ensure that police investigations are conducted efficiently and the Government will take that into account before reaching a final decision on whether there is a need to change the law.
Mr. Simon Hughes: I understand that the Government have

125WH
refused to ratify protocol 7 to the European convention on human rights, which specifically deals with that issue. Will the Minister explain the Government's refusal? The protocol allows a broad interpretation, so even if the Government signed it, they could still change the double jeopardy rule.
Mr. Boateng: Our action regarding protocol 7 does not relate directly to our review of the law of double jeopardy. The hon. Gentleman would be mistaken to confuse the two. We made a commitment to ratifying protocol 7 when our concern about inconsistencies in family law was addressed. I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, but he should not link our position on protocol 7 to our commissioning of a review of the law of double jeopardy. As I said, it is important not to confuse the two issues.
It is right to have a full and informed discussion of all the issues thrown up by the law of double jeopardy and of the balance that we need to strike between the rights of offenders and the rights of the victims of crime. It is right to respond not by a knee-jerk reaction to either side of the argument, but in a careful and considered way. I hope that all hon. Members will recognise that that is what underpins the Government's approach. We are enormously indebted to the Select Committee for its careful consideration of the problems and the obvious balance that it demonstrated in arriving at its conclusions.
3.12 pm
Mr. Nick Hawkins: I begin by declaring not so much an interest in the parliamentary sense, as a background, as I practised at the Bar for several years and took some criminal cases, albeit not so many and not at so senior a level as the hon. and learned Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews), who will doubtless speak later. During my legal career before I entered the House, I was heavily involved in the Bar Council and, during my parliamentary career, I spent some time in the inner cabinet, the general management committee of the Bar Council.
Unusually for a Member of Parliament, both my parents were research scientists. Neither was involved in forensic science. However, as I read the report produced by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) and the Select Committee on Home Affairs, I observed that, if the double jeopardy rule were changed, courts could have the opportunity to consider fresh scientific evidence that was unavailable at the time of the original trial. I find myself pulled to some extent in two different directions. As a member of the Bar, I am influenced by the length of time during which the double jeopardy rule has been sacrosanct in English law; but in view of the importance of forensic scientific evidence, I am more inclined to think that for the protection of victims and their families, the rule needs to be examined again.
I also served on the Home Affairs Committee before I was appointed to my current Front-Bench position. I thoroughly enjoyed my time on that Committee. Subsequently, when the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) became a Minister, I was delighted
126WH
that the hon. Member for Erdington was appointed as the new Chairman of the Committee. The way in which he introduced today's debate typifies the reasons why members of all parties who served on the Committee felt that he would be a good Chairman. When I practised at the Bar in the midlands, my main chambers were in Birmingham, and I remember the hon. Gentleman's good reputation as a constituency Member of Parliament. I also know of his long-standing interest in issues such as the double jeopardy rule. Without wishing to sound sycophantic, I pay tribute to him for the careful way in which he introduced the debate. It shows that the House of Commons may be at its best when discussing sensitive issues on which the judgments are finely balanced.
Members of all the main parties and perhaps of all the parties in the House take different views on the issue, for perfectly honourable reasons. It is with some hesitation, therefore, that I advance what is not only my view but that of the official Opposition. I anticipate that the hon. and learned Member for Medway will come down on a different side of the argument. I also hesitate because I know that the Criminal Bar Association opposes my view, and that of the Select Committee, that a modest change should be made in the double jeopardy rule. I have read with great care the submissions made to the Committee by those who gave evidence from the CBA and the Law Society. One is always hesitant about issues on which the arguments are finely balanced.
The official Opposition decided some time ago that we agreed with the Law Commission that the issue needed to be reconsidered and that change might be needed. We did so for many of the reasons given in the Select Committee's report. However, I stress that the official Opposition had stated their position before the Committee produced its report. I do not want people to suggest that we are simply responding to the report. I gave several radio interviews on the subject, along with Government Members who take a different view from the Committee, before it reported.
Like the Government, the Opposition will want to consider carefully the views of the Law Commission in its final report. We very much welcome what the Home Affairs Committee has said on this difficult issue. The evidence sessions were obviously undertaken with great care. Many difficult issues were canvassed and discussed at length by members of the Committee, who asked detailed and probing questions of the witnesses who appeared before them.
I agree with the Minister that both Government and Opposition must consider the matter afresh when the Law Commission produces its final report, because it may have new things to say. It will doubtless consider the Select Committee's report. Like the Minister and the hon. Member for Erdington, I recognise the strongly held views such as those held by the hon. Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman), which he expressed in his early-day motion. He is entitled to his view; the arguments are closely balanced.
The witnesses from the CBA and the Law Society who appeared before the Select Committee raised issues such as the way in which juries might be influenced and the possible need to consider additional safeguards. The Law Commission might make further recommendations, possibly including the extra safeguard of consulting the Law Officers. When I read

127WH
that passage in the evidence, I was reminded of the provisions introduced when we were in governmentߞwhich have been supported and extended by the current Government—about involving the Law Officers in appeals against over-lenient sentences. That matter may need to be reconsidered after the commission produces its final report.
On balance, most members of the public are concerned that our criminal justice system should convict and properly punish those who are guilty. It is a truism, in parliamentary debate and in law, that it is better for guilty people to be acquitted, sometimes in the teeth of the evidence, than for innocent people to be convicted. Despite that truism, it is undoubtedly in the public interest for those who are guilty to be convicted of the crimes of which they are guilty. The public are hugely concerned by cases in which it is clear from the appearance of new evidence that could not have been available at the time of the original trial that someone who was guilty got away with it. In that regard, I would have mentioned the poignant Hogg and Dunlop case, had the Minister not rightly done so. There is a huge difference between being convicted of murder at the original trial and being convicted of perjury following a subsequent confession. That case brings into sharp focus the reasons why we are now forming judgments about those finely balanced questions and deciding whether there should be a change in the law.
The fact that there is now so much more use of forensic scientific evidence in our courts and that there are so many opportunities for new evidence to be brought to light as a result of scientific advances, strengthens the case for reform. When the Select Committee was questioning witnesses, it looked particularly at matters to do with scientific developments of DNA testing and there was a great deal of arcane and technical discussion about the way in which eye and ear prints might in future be used in evidence. That is still a developing area.
In parenthesis, I mention a matter that is not vital to the debate but I feel is important. On reading the Select Committee report I was reminded of how often the media misuse the word "forensic". Most commentators suppose that "forensic" has something to do with science because they come across it only in regard to the courts but, as we all know, the correct term is "forensic scientific evidence". The term "forensic evidence" alone, as journalists so often use it, does not convey anything because it means simply something that relates to the court. If only one thing comes out of our debate, it may be the understanding that we are talking about forensic scientific evidence.
Having made that perhaps pedantic point, I return to the main issue. We shall continue to debate the issues, probably over months and perhaps years. I do not know whether other hon. Members will have a clearer idea than I of when the Law Commission will finally report, but whenever it does the House will have to return to the matter. I hope that in future such debates, on a sensitive and important topic, will take place in the main Chamber. The hon. Member for Erdington said that it was the first time that he had spoken in Westminster Hall and that he was enjoying the experience. I am not myself a supporter of the experiment of the new parallel Chamber, as I have made clear privately and publicly. Time will tell whether it survives. Whatever the case,
128WH
hon. Members on all sides will have to search their conscience, look at the evidence on both sides of those finely balanced arguments and reach a conclusion. As I said earlier, the House of Commons as a whole is often at its best when thoughtfully debating moral, philosophical and legal questions.
Mr. Simon Hughes: I agree that we should consider both general principles and detailed evidence. Could the hon. Gentleman tell me why his party leader and his party took a committed position on the issue, before the Law Commission had finished its consultation and before the Home Affairs Committee had published its report? That absolutely contradicts the spirit of what the hon. Gentleman is saying and the logic of having a considered rather than a knee-jerk response to a difficult issue.
Mr. Hawkins: It is interesting that the hon. Gentleman confirms my point that we were not responding simply to the Select Committee or to the Law Commission. I suspect that, if we had made our position clear only after the publication of those reports, we would have been accused of jumping on a bandwagon. The hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways, although that is an approach with which we are familiar from his party.
The hon. Gentleman did, however, make an important point. He asked whether we had thought the matter through. Having heard my remarks, I hope that he will accept that my colleagues and I had thought carefully about the issues at the time the Law Commission and the Select Committee were working on them. Like me, he knows that double jeopardy and related matters have been considered for some years by lawyers and especially by legal academics. It was the Macpherson inquiry report on the tragic murder of Stephen Lawrence that brought the matter into sharper focus and into general public debate. My colleagues and I had been personally and professionally interested in these issues for a number of years. It is, therefore, a misconception to suggest that we were wrong to set out a position once the matter entered into the public domain after the publication of the Macpherson report. As I said, I think that the hon. Gentleman would have taken a different tack if we had waited until the report's publication before announcing our position, although that is perhaps a matter for merely partisan debate.
Mr. Hughes: I follow that argument, but I still find it difficult to understand why a party takes a position, to which it will presumably hold—
Mr. Corbett: Not necessarily.
Mr. Hughes: The presumption is that it will hold to its view. I find it difficult to understand why a party took its position on an issue such as this at a time when a considered recommendation was about to be made. Indeed, it was to be made in the following year and, in all likelihood, before a general election. Of course, it may finally differ from the position of the hon. Gentleman's party. Are his party and party leader open to changing their position in the light of the Law Commission's final view?
Mr. Hawkins: Any political party always has to consider the evidence before it. As the Minister said, the

129WH
Government party will wait for the Law Commission recommendations before announcing its concluded view. Personally, however, I see no prospect of a change in our position, as we feel that we have considered all the difficult and sensitive issues at stake. That does not mean to say that we will not respond to any new points that are made by the Law Commission in its final report. The hon. Gentleman's party is known not merely nationally but internationally for arguing one position in one constituency and another position, 360 deg or 180 deg the other way round, in a neighbouring one whenever it suits it to do so. It is, therefore, a bit rich for the hon. Gentleman to talk about consistency.
As I said, despite my great interest in the issue under discussion, I must apologise to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to the Minister and to other hon. Members. I may have to leave a little before the debate ends because of another commitment. I would not usually leave a debate of such importance, but I undertake to read all the speeches with great care. I can only apologise for the fact that I may have to leave early, for reasons of which you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and the Minister are aware.
It behoves us all to consider the difficult cases that are bound to arise during the next few months and years from the review of double jeopardy, and to examine carefully the Law Commission's final report. We must take a decision, as we are elected by our constituents exactly to take decisions such as this. We will not all agree and there will be differences within the parties. My view and that of the Opposition is that there is now a strong set of reasons for minor changes, with a number of safeguards and affecting a tiny number of cases. That is why the Select Committee was right in its conclusion. I once again commend it for its thorough piece of work.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. John McWilliam): Order. A large number of hon. Members want to speak in the debate. If we are to fit them all in and have time for the Minister's reply, I advise them to be as brief as they can, given the importance of the subject.
3.29 pm
Mr. Simon Hughes: I, too, welcome the debate, especially in the context of having the opportunity to debate Select Committee reports at this stage. I thank the Chairman of the Select Committee and his colleagues for taking a timely issue, dealing with it thoroughly and calling eminent and appropriate people to give evidence. I also thank them for their report. I include in that context my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Mr. Russell), who has just joined us in the Chamber.
In general terms, I shall take the same line as the Minister, in that we have taken the view that we should wait for the Law Commission to complete its work before reaching our final conclusion. It would prejudice our party's consideration and our final conclusion if I were suddenly to announce, here and now, that I was critical of the leader of the Conservative party at the time of that announcement, for just that reason. That is why I made the point a minute ago. The Government
130WH
were right to say that they have set the process in train, and that they will ask the relevant people—including the Select Committee on Home Affairs—to give them advice, which they will weigh up.
The Law Commission itself has asked for others to give advice. The Home Affairs Committee—as the Chairman clearly pointed out—rightly produced a report with a different expected sequence of events, given the context. Therefore, the right process is for us to hold this debate, and for the Law Commission to finish its work—I understand, as does the Minister, that it will do so early in the new year—after which hon. Members will formally come to a view. My hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, like all members of the Committee, is free to form a view as a Committee member, and he endorsed the view of the Select Committee. One can entirely understand where the Select Committee's views came from.
I shall heed your request for brevity, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I just want to make a few points that relate to the debate. First, I start from the principle that there needs to be an overwhelming reason for change. The case must be made on extremely good grounds, and we must work on the basis that any change would be made only as necessary and sufficient to accommodate the concerns that exist. In other words, it would probably involve a small exception to a general rule, instead of ranging more widely. That is the tenor of the Select Committee report.
Secondly, I declare that I would need to be persuaded. I do not have a closed mind on the issue. There are arguments on both sides. I do not come to the debate with a fixed position on the subject. I am not being secretive with colleagues or other hon. Members and saying that, whatever happens, I know what I am going to say at the end of the debate. I do not come to it with that view, and I hope that that is an honest position to adopt.
Thirdly, although it is important that we respond to the Macpherson report's request that this issue be examined—the only official request that has been made, as I understand it—that should not make the case for change. As a south-east London Member of Parliament who sat in on the Macpherson inquiry on occasions, and who has met Doreen and Neville Lawrence and knows their lawyer, I understand exactly their motivation. However, one needs more than one bad case, one unsatisfactory resolution, to shift the burden. That case, therefore, raises an issue for me but does not answer it.
The Select Committee report mentions, and the Law Commission also alludes to the fact, that other matters under consideration are linked to this issue. I think that it is wrong to separate them. The Director of Public Prosecutions expressed concern in the last answer of his oral evidence to the Select Committee that if the Government, the Law Commission and the Select Committee linked the consideration of this issue with the consideration of prosecution appeals against judges' decisions, it might unnecessarily delay the whole process. In my view, those are linked issues, and there should be a conclusion that links them together. They should be considered together, because they are both procedural matters concerning the way in which the

131WH
criminal justice system deals with what are perceived to be wrong decisions along the route. It would be wrong to legislate on one without the other.
I know that Sir Robin Auld has been asked by the Government to review the criminal justice system, and I understand that he is on target to complete his work by the end of the year, after which a significant report will be published. In the interests of good law and good consideration of changes in legal and criminal procedure, all such matters should be considered in the round. That is partly why many of us, like the hon. and learned Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews), felt strongly—regardless of any other objections—that there should be no change in the right to choose jury trial. The whole area was shortly to be examined, and it appeared to us that it would be wrong to deal with one issue out of context.
We need to know that our laws are compatible with our wider international obligations, and the decision must be taken in the context of the international covenant on civil and political rights and of the European convention on human rights. That is why I asked the Minister about article 4 of the seventh protocol, which relates precisely to this issue. I believe that Finland is the only European Union country that has an exception to double jeopardy. I happened to be there recently, and forgot to ask, but that could easily be confirmed by speaking to people at the embassy. Before concluding our consideration of the issue, we should have the facts about the law in other EU countries and traditional common law jurisdictions, because one can learn and profit from other experiences.
In that context, I was surprised that the Committee did not consider the fact that just over the border to the north of us there is a different criminal law system, which allows three verdicts instead of two—Scotland has the "not proven" verdict. I am not about to make a speech in favour of that option. However, there may be an argument for considering a return to a prosecution only where the previous case concluded, as is allowed under Scottish law, with a "not proven" verdict. Scottish law has had that option for centuries. Although it is sometimes criticised—it allows a cloud to hang over the person on trial—there is no strong view that it should be changed.
Mr. Boateng: Can the hon. Gentleman recall when that verdict was last delivered in Scotland?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman be careful: I am a Scottish justice of the peace.
Mr. Hughes: I asked a Scottish colleague in the House of Lords who is involved in the criminal justice process about that today, and he told me that "not proven" verdicts are delivered several times a year.
I suppose that, like other hon. Members, I should have declared my interests. I am a trained lawyer. The only other relevant information is that I have an ancestor whose first case was a famous murder trial in
132WH
Edinburgh that resulted in a "not proven" verdict. It happens fairly frequently, and we should consider whether it is relevant to the debate.
Mr. Paul Stinchcombe: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the principal argument in favour of relaxation is the cogency of new evidence, not the doubts arising from the first trial?
Mr. Hughes: I do accept that. That case was well made in the Committee's report and recommendations. I should like to make three final points.
First, I understand the point that was made by the Committee and the Director of Public Prosecutions that one objective of our criminal justice system is to ensure that people who are guilty are convicted, and that one of the perceived failures of the system is that victims sometimes do not receive a fair outcome. Those of us with a background in criminal law have a duty to defend the liberty of the subject and the accused, but the interest of the victim is also an issue. There is sometimes grief and complaint about the system when there is a clear victim and an unanswered question. The Lawrence case is a good example because, clearly, someone or some people committed that terrible crime.
Dr. Ladyman: As a Member with legal training who has carefully studied the Stephen Lawrence case, will the hon. Gentleman suggest whether the Committee's recommendation would have the slightest bearing on the Stephen Lawrence case? My reading of that case, based on the inquiry, is that the strictures recommended by the Committee would not allow it to be reconsidered.
Mr. Hughes: I am cautious about moving on to that ground because, as the hon. Gentleman will be aware, the police are considering whether any further action can be taken. We are free to comment, but they have not proceeded with another charge and I prefer to leave them to complete their work. I am conscious that the Select Committee's recommendations are not the final word and I hope that the Law Commission is mindful that a live issue concerning justice exists in the Stephen Lawrence case. I have an answer, but I prefer not to comment because I do not want it to be misinterpreted or quoted in part.
The second issue concerning the balance of interest is that we must not forget our duty to ensure that the wrongly accused also have a chance of rehabilitation. We believe in the rehabilitation of people who are properly accused and convicted, but the rehabilitation of those who are wrongly accused is equally important. If there is always the prospect of returning to a case, the possibility of a retrial in a serious case would not facilitate a sense of completeness in the criminal justice system.
My final point is that it was interesting, but surprising, that the Law Commission started by suggesting that offences that might result in a sentence as relatively low in the tariff of seriousness as three years' imprisonment should be the threshold. A three-year prison sentence is not laid down in law—it is merely a choice given by the court from a range of sentences—and does not suggest a degree of seriousness to many people. If the Law Commission is to make a

133WH
recommendation, I strongly urge it to move in the direction in which I believe that it and the Select Committee are moving, and to recommend that only the most serious offences be included, so that cases of homicide are the most likely to be reopened. I am not saying that to prejudge the view of the Liberal Democrats, but we should not open the box and allow prosecution of a wide range of offences with a wide range of tariffs. The reopening of a case should be an extremely rare exception and the criteria should be laid down and approved only with extreme thoroughness and in rare circumstances.
I end as I began. My hon. Friend the Member for Colchester and I will listen to the voices here, and when the Law Commission has produced its report we shall give it proper consideration and come up with a clear view—hopefully before the general election—on whether the law should be changed.
3.44 pm
Mr. David Winnick: May I express the hope that this sort of debate on the double jeopardy rule will continue in other places? The hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) said that he hoped that such a debate could be held in the House. However, in my humble view, it would be a nightmare if it took place during Prime Minister's questions or Home Office questions with the two sides clashing bitterly on whether the rule should be changed.
I do not want to give the wrong impression. I am someone who, when necessary, enjoys being controversial in the House. However, there are subjects that require calmness and a good deal of reflection, and this is one of them. A party battle will not serve the cause of justice.
I am in favour of a change, but I recognise some possible drawbacks. I have no illusions on that score. As the report states, there is a danger that where someone is acquitted, the police will conclude that the court took the wrong decision and continue to pursue that person. Let us consider high-profile cases from some time ago that involved miscarriages of justice. What would have happened in the 1970s if the Birmingham Six and the Guildford Four had been acquitted? Here I am putting the opposite view to mine, but it must be taken into account. Given the circumstances, there is perhaps more than a possibility that the police force involved would have decided that the men were clearly guilty and the court was wrong. If the double jeopardy rule had not existed, they may have wished to pursue the matter. Of course, whether they would have been covered by the safeguards recommended by the Law Commission and us is another matter.
I am simply pointing out that, as someone who is in favour of a change, I recognise some of the drawbacks. As we know, some argue that an acquittal is an acquittal and that should be the end of it. However, in cases involving murder, if compelling new evidence comes along—I emphasise the words "compelling new evidence"—the law should surely allow a process that could enable a person to be tried again for the same offence.
No court, let alone one that is trying a case involving the taking of life, should be seen simply as a test of the relative skills of the prosecution and defence. Above all,
134WH
this is a question of justice, as previous hon. Members have emphasised, not least my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett), the Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee. Those who have committed the most serious offences of all should not be allowed to get away with it. That is why, speaking as a non-lawyer, I have to a large extent changed my mind in recent years about the double jeopardy rule.
Victim Support says that it is important to victims and their immediate families that justice should be done. One can well understand that view, which Victim Support has strongly upheld and submitted to the Home Affairs Committee. However, perhaps understandably, the National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders argues against a change. In a submission that refers to the original Law Commission report, it concludes:
However, we would oppose any further extension of exceptions to the rule…unless more effective safeguards can be devised than those currently proposed.
It is interesting to note that, although NACRO opposes change, it does not completely and dogmatically rule it out. It opposes change
unless more effective safeguards can be devised
and I agree that there should be essential safeguards.
In considering any proposed change to the rule, it is important to take note of paragraph 45 of our report. The police and the prosecution authorities alone should not be able to charge a person who has been acquitted. There would have to be a clear process involving the High Court, which would have to decide whether the original acquittal should be taken into account. The prosecution would have to show that the new evidence had not been available at the first trial. A defendant would be able to argue, obviously through his lawyer, that it would be unfair to try him again. The prosecution would have to show that it was highly probable, or that the court was sure, that a jury would convict at a second hearing, and the procedure could be used only once for a second trial, not indefinitely.
Mr. Marshall-Andrews: My hon. Friend has touched on the matter that caused me most concern about the report, in which I know he played a considerable part. I am concerned about the burden on the prosecution, when an application is to be made to the Court of Appeal or to the High Court—whichever it is to be—as to the level at which the court may predicate its decision. Is it to be a matter of a probability or certainty of conviction in the mind of the court, or, as the Committee appears to have concluded, of the original acquittal being unsafe? I do not understand what that means. Because of the burden of proof, it is possible to say that a very large number of acquittals are unsafe, if one applies that straightforward test.
Mr. Winnick: I appreciate the manner of my hon. and learned Friend's intervention. Obviously, as a distinguished QC he will no doubt, if he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, address the Committee.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. This is not a Committee, but a sitting of a Chamber of the House. I can assure the hon. and learned Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews) that he will catch my eye next.
Mr. Winnick: On the first point I am corrected, and the second will be of great interest to my hon. and

135WH
learned Friend. I apologise for my reference to the Committee. All that I can say to my hon. and learned Friend in answer to his question is that there is little that I can add to what is set out in the report. It is very clear. I see that the Chairman of the Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Erdington suggests that I draw my hon. Friend's attention to paragraph 41, which states:
we conclude that the test to be applied by the High Court should be whether the new evidence makes the previous acquittal unsafe, thus putting the emphasis on the past acquittal rather than appearing to prejudge any future second trial.
My right hon. Friend the Minister referred to a case in which the person concerned admitted responsibility for the murder. That, of course, is interesting, but I want to refer to another case, in which the relevant person was not tried at the time of the murder. In The Times of 30 September there is a report of Ian Lowther being convicted of a murder that took place 23 years ago. He confessed and has been sentenced to life imprisonment. To critics who argue that there should be no change in the law I ask what would have happened if he had been tried at the time of the murder in 1977. He had been questioned several times by the police, but the evidence had not been sufficient to bring him to court.
If he had been tried and acquitted, it would not have been possible to bring him to court later. He was brought to court as a result of DNA testing, which showed that it would have been almost impossible for him not to be responsible for the murder. I accept that if all the advances that have been made in DNA testing had been available, it is quite likely that his guilt would have been discovered at the time. However, if it had not, there would have been no way to convict him, because it would not be possible to charge him again. That aspect of the matter is much in my mind.
Dr. Ladyman: Does my hon. Friend agree that if the double jeopardy law had been relaxed 23 years ago, the prosecution would have been tempted to bring the case to trial before there was sufficient evidence to secure a conviction in the knowledge that, if better evidence appeared later, it could have another stab at the case?
Mr. Winnick: That is one view. I have already mentioned the Birmingham Six and the Guildford Four, but one hopes that the police have changed somewhat in the past quarter of a century and do not work on the same cynical basis. My hon. Friend is saying that, if the law were changed, the police would not need to worry too much about certain cases because an acquitted person could be tried at least once again later. I ask him to take note of paragraph 45, which outlines the important safeguards that the High Court must take into account before deciding that new evidence is so compelling as to require an acquitted person to face the court again.
Mr. Corbett: Will my hon. Friend also confirm that it is not even simply a matter of the police and Crown Prosecution Service believing that they have evidence that is more compelling than at the time of the initial trial? As well as that, the High Court has to be persuaded that a particular case can be retried fairly.
Mr. Winnick: Yes, indeed. My hon. Friend makes a valid point.
136WH
The murdered person, Mary Gregson, left behind a husband and one child, but her husband died of a heart attack four years after his wife's murder. Her parents did not live to see the killer charged and sentenced. I do not make these points to stir up emotion. We often talk about rights and civil liberties—the very reason we have a Parliament—but we should never forget the rights and liberties that have been taken away from murder victims. My hon. Friends who disagree with changing the rule would surely not disagree with that.
There has been a more recent case of rape, which I wish to draw to the House's attention. It implies a weakening of sorts in the double jeopardy rule. The serial rapist had twice been convicted of rape and acquitted no fewer than five times. On all those occasions, he was defended by the same lawyer. I make no criticism of that lawyer, who was doubtless carrying out his duties—[Interruption.] It was certainly not my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Medway, who need not feel embarrassed.
I repeat that this person had been twice convicted of rape and acquitted no fewer than five times. On the last occasion, the jury were told of his history. That was not allowed until recently on the basis that it would prejudice the trial. The entire history of the accused would otherwise have been unknown to the jury. The Law Lords whether the history should be given to the jury in this particular case, and considered that it should. That is not a direct breach of the double jeopardy rule, because the person was being charged with a new offence with which he had not been charged previously. It nevertheless represents a weakening of the double jeopardy rule to the extent that the jury was told of previous convictions. Was it not right to tell the jury? Was it not right that justice was done—the accused found guilty and sentenced to life imprisonment?
Although we recognise the strength of our laws, including the double jeopardy rule, it is important not to be dogmatic. We should not be such purists that we cannot recognise the need for flexibility and change while at the same time recognising that safeguards are essential.
Justice is all important. There is an onus on the defenders of the status quo for the double jeopardy rule to show that justice would be maintained in the sort of cases that the Minister and I have mentioned if the rule were to go. Although I am in favour of the change to the rule, any such change should be on limited grounds with all the safeguards that the Home Affairs Committee pointed out and which were included in the revised letter from the Law Commission to the Select Committee. If those safeguards are applied, there is a good case for changing the double jeopardy rule.
4 pm
Mr. Robert Marshall-Andrews: May I immediately declare an interest? In my time at the bar—which is far too long—I have prosecuted and defended in many of the cases that were envisaged by the Committee and, indeed, in many murder trials. Were this proposal to become legislation I have not the slightest doubt that there would be a significant increase in the work going to my brethren at the bar, resulting in their enrichment. For that reason and others, I oppose it.

137WH
There is a fundamental flaw in the approach that the Law Commission took and the Committee then adopted. It lies in the nature of our criminal justice system, which is ancient and eccentric. It is based on trial by battle. It is an adversarial system. Indeed, in mediaeval times it was exactly that: trial by battle. One side hired a thug, the other side hired another thug and they fought it out in an arena. God decided who would win ultimately.
Mr. Corbett: It has not changed then.
Mr. Marshall-Andrews: We can immediately see the shadows of our present system. Thugs have been replaced by barristers and God has been replaced by the jury, but the essential elements of the adversarial system remain. We do not have an inquisition. As a result we are concerned not with truth, but with proof. That has always been the basis of our system. It has imperfections. Systems, such as the French one, which are concerned with the discovery of truth, appoint independent magistrates who are employed precisely to ascertain what occurred. We do not have that.
Our system is based on the state proving the case. As a result, a grossly disproportionate strength is immediately observable; the strength of the prosecution compared with that of the defence. It is a completely outweighed contest. We have always sought to redress the balance by a number of rules within our system, of which the most important is the burden and the standard of proof: the prosecution must prove its case. Thus a jury that goes out and considers its verdict and comes to the conclusion that there is the probability of guilt must acquit.
That is the nature of our system. I know that many people find that distressing, especially victims. Often in criminal cases it is clear that there is the probability of guilt, but the adversarial system drives the jury irrevocably towards acquittal. The adversarial system is not between victim and defendant but between state and defendant. The victim in our system has abnegated his right to bring a trial. He can do so in a private prosecution as happened in the Lawrence case, but generally he abnegates that right to the state, which may falter and get it wrong. That is the system in which we operate, and because of that imbalance in power, checks and balances are needed for the defendant. The first of those checks and balances after the burden of proof is finality. Finality is needed because the prosecution—the investigation of crime—is carried out not by independent magistrates, not in a search for the truth, but by the police. The power of the police in the investigation of criminal offences is stronger here than it is in any other country in Europe. For that reason, it is essential that that power is constrained and the constraint is finality.
I have prosecuted with fine police forces, with serious crime and serious fraud squads and the like, and I know that finality is essential. Every time a decision is taken, either by the police or by those who advise them, about whether cases should be brought, the first and most simple element in that decision is, "If we get it wrong this time, that is the end of it, and we cannot come back."
Mr. Martin Linton: What would my hon. and learned Friend say to the victim of rape whose
138WH
assailant was acquitted because the jury did not think it was beyond reasonable doubt, who hears the rapist bragging in the local pub that he committed the rape and got away with it? What kind of system does not enable such a person, having confessed to the crime, to be prosecuted?
Mr. Marshall-Andrews: I thought that I had explained that to my hon. Friend. I can tell him that there are very few such instances, but they are, of course, reprehensible, and represent a weakness in our system. However, for every weakness in a system, there is a corresponding strength. It is not the recommendation of the Law Commission or of the Select Committee that someone who brags about a crime may, for that reason, be brought back and tried again. What is being talked about is evidence, and evidence of a confession in the circumstances described by my hon. Friend would be most unlikely to afford a ground in the way proposed.
Mr. Winnick: Probably, such a change in the law would be confined to murder even if there were compelling new evidence. However, my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton) has answered the point in his example. What sort of justice can it be for the victim if the rapist is not convicted of the crime that he has committed? What about the case mentioned by the Minister, in which the double jeopardy rule applied, or the case that I mentioned, in which, despite the evidence that came to light after 20 years, if the accused had been acquitted at the time he could not have been charged with the murder of Mary Gregson?
Mr. Marshall-Andrews: I take my hon. Friend's point and that made by my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, but no system devised by man could ensure perfection on conviction or acquittal.
The Law Commission and the Select Committee recommend that if someone is retried as the result of the abolition of the double jeopardy rule and then acquitted that will be the end of it. A trial can be held no more than twice; the case cannot go on and on. That seems reasonable enough, but what happens after the second acquittal if the accused goes into a pub and boasts that he was guilty? Perfection has not been achieved, but we are not aiming at perfection; we are aiming at a system of justice that balances the state against the individual, not the victim against the individual.
I respect absolutely what the Select Committee said, but that is where its argument is flawed. At the beginning of paragraph 36, the Committee states that

the purpose of the exercise—
the exercise is the trial procedure—
is to convict the guilty
With respect to the draftsmen, that is patently wrong; the purpose of the trial procedure is to prove guilt. It is the purpose of the investigation procedure to convict the guilty, and it is the division between those two parts of our criminal justice system that is being ignored.
I have taken too much time already, so I shall confine my comments to two matters. First, on the seriousness of the cases that could be retried, I understand that murder or the worst types of manslaughter are now, in the view of the Law Commission, the only offences that should be reconsidered. At first, that seems attractive,

139WH
but murder is not necessarily the most serious crime on the statute book. I have prosecuted and convicted murderers, and the most obvious examples to cite are cases of mercy killing compared with other cases such as that of a human being who was systematically tortured for several weeks and left with severe mental and physical incapacity. Taking those two cases side by side, there is no doubt which, in the public mind, would be the more serious offence. If the double jeopardy rule is relaxed, its application to any case except murder will prove to be not a lock on the door but a wedge.
The second matter is that of DNA, which is the most attractive argument for relaxing the double jeopardy rule.
Mr. Linton: Does not my hon. and learned Friend accept that in cases of scientific advance or religious conversion a second trial should be allowed?
Mr. Marshall-Andrews: I shall come to that in a moment. DNA causes me the most concern because it is probably the finest weapon that has ever been devised in the investigation and proof of serious crime, particularly crimes of violence. What causes me, none the less, to maintain my opposition to the proposal is that making the operation of the statute retrospective would be abhorrent to all criminal concepts, and probably contrary to the convention. Crime investigated now has the full benefits of DNA; in serious crime, DNA is always employed. In those circumstances, the problem is avoided.
Mr. Stinchcombe: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that the Law Commission suggests that DNA evidence should be applied retrospectively?
Mr. Marshall-Andrews: I had hoped not to indulge in another argument. It seems to me transparent that it would contravene the convention if such retrospective evidence were applied, and it would be a major departure in criminal statutes. However, that is another argument. Even if it were applied retrospectively, as DNA has been an active tool of investigation for so long, the likelihood is that the number of cases involved would be very small.
4.14 pm
Mr. Martin Linton: I spent this morning at the Court of Appeal, which finally heard the case of one of my constituents, Richard Mulcahy, who has already spent three years and four months in prison for a robbery that he did not commit. The appeal lasted all of three seconds. As the barrister got to his feet, the judge said, "No need to trouble you any further," and read out the judgment. Counsel for the Criminal Cases Review Commission said that if the evidence available now had been known before the trial, a prosecution would never have taken place. Fingerprints were found on a bin bag in the shop where the robbery took place, and now, three years and four months later, the police are sure that they have a strong case that those fingerprints belong to somebody else. My constituent has now been released. I am happy about that result, as I am happy when any miscarriage of justice is overturned.
However, surely the same considerations that apply to wrongful convictions should also apply to wrongful acquittals. Many people in the legal system appear to be
140WH
less concerned about wrongful acquittals. There is an old saying that convicting one innocent person is more serious than allowing 10 guilty people to go free. That is an unbalanced approach to justice, which assumes that there is no injured party when there is a wrongful acquittal. A rape victim who knows the person who committed the rape, but is unable to convince a jury, will live the rest of their life in fear because the person remains at liberty and may repeat the crime. When new evidence becomes available—if we are not to take an extraordinarily cavalier attitude to the rights of victims—it is just as much a question of justice that such a person should be dealt with as it is that a person in a case such as that of my constituent, who was wrongfully convicted and spent three years in jail, should be allowed to go free when the case against him or her is demolished.
This is not a question of a difference between lawyers and non-lawyers. Much of the pressure for change has come from lawyers—not only from the Law Commission, but from many eminent academic lawyers. The Committee's report quotes the Society of Public Teachers of Law, which has referred to the growing recognition of the interests of victims within the criminal justice system given that
the present rules are arguably too absolute in favour of the defendant.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews) may find that point of view too difficult to stomach, but I remind him that it is held by academic lawyers.
Mr. Marshall-Andrews: Will my hon. Friend address the point that there is an imbalance in our system, in that it is based on the prosecution being brought by the state and the defendant being defended by the defence? Are we to move towards a victim-led system—of which Islamic law is one example—in which the victim may dictate not only the prosecution, but, if they wish, on the payment of money, whether there should be a withdrawal of the prosecution; or is it right that the state should make such decisions?
Mr. Linton: I always listen with interest to my hon. and learned Friend speaking on legal matters: he knows the criminal justice and legal system far better than I. As I understand it, the burden of proof is the essential safeguard that is built into the legal system to allow for the superior resources of the prosecution against the defence. That is a very high standard to meet. In police disciplinary cases, for instance, the burden of proof has sometimes been felt to be too high. It is right that in court cases there should be a higher standard of proof—that is the safeguard.
Having the double jeopardy rule as a second safeguard is illogical. It has also given rise to a distasteful development: people who brag about their past offences in the belief that they are beyond punishment.
Mr. Winnick: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Linton: In a moment, but I should like to develop my point first.
There are now kill-and-tell memoirs, as opposed to kiss-and-tell memoirs, in which criminals not only boast of their activities but make money out of their crimes,

141WH
which are often murders. One such best-selling author is known as Dodgy Dave Courtney. He was one of the Kray twins' enforcers and has admitted to a murder of which he was acquitted. Roy "Pretty Boy" Shaw described in his biography, which sold well, how he had killed a man with his bare hands. Mad Frank Fraser, a torturer working for the Richardson gang when it ruled south London's gangland, similarly described murders that he had committed.
Mr. Marshall-Andrews: They were convicted.
Mr. Linton: There were other murders as well. Kray henchman, Freddie Foreman, described on television how he had murdered Frank Mitchell, the mad axeman—they are all called "mad"—and fed his body to fish in the North sea. He and the Krays were acquitted of that murder. Perhaps the most famous case is that of Ronnie Knight, whom a jury found not guilty of the gangland murder of Alfredo Zomparelli, who was gunned down in the Golden Goose amusement arcade in Soho. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Medway may remember the case. In his memoirs, which have recently been on the bestseller lists, Ronnie Knight admits that he got away with murder—in this case literally—although he did not pull the trigger himself. Instead, he gave a contract killer a "nice big envelope" to do it.
Dr. Ladyman: My hon. Friend's contribution is as entertaining and well researched as usual. However, does he have one scrap of evidence to suggest that guilty verdicts would have been delivered if the double jeopardy rule had been relaxed in the suggested manner, but the people in question had not confessed? Would not they have merely shut up and never confessed, but still have got away with their crimes?
Mr. Linton: I cannot predict whether they would have confessed later in life. Some people do so, for all sorts of reasons, and there is no reason why they should enjoy immunity. At the very least, such a change might have prevented the obscenity of the Clerkenwell literary festival, where these authors paraded their wealth. In a report about the festival, the Daily Mirror stated:
The star of the evening, however, is Dave Courtney. "Dodgy" Dave arrives in a gleaming white Rolls-Royce flanked by 21 motorcycle outriders.
The newspaper reported that
Dave organised Ronnie Kray's funeral, has worked as an enforcer and debt collector
and
has admitted to (but been acquitted of) murder.
It went on to state:
Charismatic Courtney is the latest underworld figure to swap the prison cell for the Waterstones window display and his memoirs will almost certainly be topping the bestseller lists.
Such books have become a sort of publishing boom, but are based on allowing people to boast of previous crimes. Furthermore, they are not written only by people from the underworld.
Many other people have been acquitted of crimes to which they have later admitted. Another famous case is that of John Duffy, the railway rapist, who was
142WH
convicted of many serious crimes. He later confessed to the rape of Anne Lock, of whose murder he was acquitted in 1988. However, I was most convinced of the need for change by the case of Billy Dunlop, who was acquitted of the murder of a pizza delivery girl in 1991. Earlier this year, he confessed to the crime, but could not be tried for murder. As my right hon. Friend the Minister knows, he could be tried only for perjury. He was convicted, but it is extraordinary that the victim's family had to suffer the past 10 years before they could get him behind bars. The mother and father of the victim spoke of how
following his acquittal for murder. Dunlop had boasted to his pals that he had committed the perfect murder.
Mr. Ming said:
He boasted about it in the pubs and people used to ring us up and tell us.
Yet it was 10 years before the police finally managed to bring charges, and even then, they were only charges of perjury.
Of course, those ex-mobsters might be embellishing their tales to sell more books. However, I cannot think of any reason why a jury should not be allowed to make that decision. I fully support the recommendation of the Committee that we should allow retrials, at least for serious offences.
Mr. Marshall-Andrews: The hon. Gentleman has not quite addressed the question that was put. If there is a change to the law, is he suggesting that the number of people who have now confessed to their crimes—rightly or wrongly—would still do so? If they would not, what point is the hon. Gentleman making?
Mr. Linton: We do not know the answer to that question. It would be up to the Director of Public Prosecutions to decide whether to reopen a case, and it would be up to the police to bring those confessions to court. However, at present, criminals are boasting about crimes that they have committed previously, believing that they have immunity. That seems inherently wrong. However, I cannot predict what will happen when this rule is changed.
I readily acknowledge that there are dangers. We do not want the police to pursue a suspect unfairly, nor do we want a prosecutor to retry the same suspect several times in the hope that some jury will convict him. That is why we should allow retrials for only the most serious offences—those that can attract a life sentence—and, I would suggest, not only for murder, but for manslaughter, rape and robbery. We should also make it a condition that there should be new evidence that was not available at the first trial, and which makes the previous acquittal unsafe.
I do not see why we should rule out new evidence that could have been adduced with due diligence at the first trial, as the Law Commission originally proposed. If the police missed a fingerprint, or failed to interview a witness, why should a court not be allowed to consider the fresh evidence? In the case of my constituent, the fact that the police missed a fingerprint led eventually to his appeal being upheld. Why, if it were the other way round, should that not also obtain? For instance, if police investigating a robbery in a car showroom had failed, for whatever reason—perhaps through

143WH
incompetence, negligence, or stupidity—to look for fingerprints on the car next to the stolen car, but had found them later, could those fingerprints never be used, even though they would constitute very powerful evidence? If so, we would be letting the criminal justice system off the hook.
The Law Society made a point in its evidence about incomplete investigation, which I found very unconvincing. It argued that
A police force would allow a trial to go ahead following an incomplete investigation, in the belief that if they did not succeed in obtaining a conviction, the investigation could be continued and they could go back to court with further evidence.
It seems most unlikely that the police bringing a serious case against someone, knowing that they had to satisfy the very high standards of proof required in criminal cases, would go to court with only half a case, or without having looked for the available evidence. I find that very implausible. The high standard of proof required is the crucial test in our legal system. Is the idea that one cannot have a retrial in which there is fresh evidence meant to be a kind of incentive or punishment for the police, to make sure that they work very hard when bringing the case in the first place? That punishment would fall not on the police, but on the victim or the victim's family. It is they who suffer in the case of a wrongful acquittal, especially if that wrongful acquittal cannot be put right.
The Law Commission originally shrank from making any recommendation about whether the relaxation of the double jeopardy rules should apply retrospectively. I am interested in what my hon. Friends have to say about that. We think that it should apply retrospectively. As I understand it, the principle is that it would be wrong to change the law so that someone is punished retrospectively for doing something that was not an offence at the time. However, we are talking about people who knew that they were committing crimes, lied in court and got away with it. Such cases are entirely different from those with which the retrospectivity principle intends to deal in law.
Of course, the law does allow retrial in restricted cases. At the very least, the Law Commission would like retrials where scientific advance brings new evidence to light, where religious conversion, for example, brings forward a fresh witness who would not give evidence at the first trial, and in instances of jury nobbling. Those are the basic cases where retrials should be allowed. More generally, where there is new and strong evidence that renders the previous court finding unsafe—a phrase that is perfectly understandable in layman's terms—it ought to be possible to bring someone back to justice.
I find the way in which the legal system uses the double jeopardy principle very strange. Doctors famously bury their own mistakes, and it seems that lawyers use double jeopardy to prevent wrongful acquittal from resulting in a retrial, which could expose the incompetence of the police or the prosecutors. That is hidden for ever from the public gaze, thanks to the principle of double jeopardy. It is nice to present double jeopardy purely as a defence for the wronged individual, but I suspect that it is deeply ingrained in the legal system.
When we gathered evidence from the Law Society and, in particular, the Bar Council, it struck me that some people seemed more familiar with the accused
144WH
than the victim. If we pursue the logical precept that the legal system must be seen as clearly from the victim's point of view as from that of the accused, we must surely conclude that a wrongful acquittal is as bad as a wrongful conviction. The double jeopardy rule gets in the way of exposing wrongful acquittals, and it should be relaxed.
4.33 pm
Dr. Stephen Ladyman: My hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton) seemed to argue for a change in the law to prevent boasting, but I heard nothing in the examples that he gave to suggest that justice would be done. If I have learned one thing in this life, it is that anyone whose nickname contains the word "mad" is not stupid enough to confess while there is still the possibility of his being tried.
We have heard an argument for relaxing the double jeopardy rule that would put at risk our entire criminal justice system, simply to stop people making money from boasting later in life, after they have got away with the crime. If that issue is our real concern, by all means let us introduce a Bill that will allow the state to sue someone for the proceeds of boasting—the money from their books and memoirs—but let us not change the balance of our criminal legal system in a manner that would seriously jeopardise the interests of innocent people.
Mr. Linton: I return to the Dunlop case, in which the man boasted in local pubs in the north-east that he had committed the perfect murder. Does my hon. Friend believe that it would have been better if that person could have been tried for the murder of which he was acquitted instead of merely for perjury?
Dr. Ladyman: I certainly understand the Minister's argument that, from the victim's family's point of view, finding someone guilty of perjury is a different matter from finding him guilty of murder or rape. However, as long as that person receives the same punishment, whatever crime he is subsequently tried for, I am prepared to accept that our present imperfect system is at least an improvement on the alternative, which is to relax the double jeopardy rule with the result that substantially more innocent people would be convicted.
I shall quote a case to illustrate my point. I shall not name the accused, but it is a matter of public record and many right hon. and hon. Members will know the name. A murder took place on Wimbledon common several years ago and the accused was acquitted. On the steps of the court, the police told the television cameras and the world that they were not looking for anyone else in connection with that case. They believed that the jury had made an astonishing cock-up and that the accused was guilty. Can anyone in this Chamber assure me that if the double jeopardy rule had been relaxed, that man would not have been back in court a few months later? The police would have put all their efforts into finding another witness.
Mr. Corbett: I take my hon. Friend's point, but the argument cannot be telescoped so neatly. The Home Affairs Committee is arguing that there must be compelling new evidence and that a court—
Mr. Winnick: The High Court.
Mr. Corbett: It is arguing that the High Court must be persuaded that the new evidence is compelling and that

145WH
it is possible in the circumstances for a new trial to be fair. It does not help the argument to put it all together within an inch when there is a mile in it.
Dr. Ladyman: I accept my hon. Friend's argument that there must be new evidence, but I suggest that, in the case to which I referred, new evidence—perhaps a new witness—would have been found to bring the case rapidly back to court. The police were convinced that a guilty man had been acquitted. We now know that there are serious doubts about the attitude of the police in that case. Relaxation of the double jeopardy law would have enabled an injustice to be done.
I want to declare my interest in the matter. I am not a lawyer and, with respect to the lawyers who are present, I cannot think of a worse way of earning a living. However, I hope to go through life without committing a serious offence and if I ever find myself in court for a serious offence, it will be as an innocent man accused. I would want to know that the odds of defending myself are in my favour and that when I have defended myself and been acquitted, that will be the end of the matter. That is the least that we should all expect from the legal system.
In his evidence to the Select Committee the Director of Public Prosecutions explained how the double jeopardy rule came about, but, with the greatest respect, I am not sure that he made it forcefully enough. We have the double jeopardy rule because the state is hugely powerful. As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews) said—he has had to leave his place for a moment—the state is responsible for prosecutions in this country. The state is hugely powerful and the individual is very weak. Relatively speaking, the state is all-powerful, so we must build protection into the system. That protection is in the form of principles, which give the individual, who is weak, a fighting chance.
Mr. Winnick: Of course he is innocent. No one doubts that for a moment, but is my hon. Friend saying that he would be happy if someone were acquitted on the most serious charges and then compelling new evidence came to light? Why should a case be finalised simply by the acquittal? He talks about the state, but this is a democracy. Should we work on the basis that the state has no wish other than to see that justice is done? There is a difference between living in a democracy and living in a totalitarian state. Of course there have been miscarriages of justice, but why should the state more or less conspire against the individual unless the police and prosecution authorities believe that there is sufficient evidence that someone has committed the offence?
Dr. Ladyman: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for introducing the word that I was about to use—democracy. One reason why we live in a democracy is that we have established principles that protect the weak individual against the all-powerful state. We accept that there is a cost for those principles, one of which is that guilty people will occasionally go free. Nevertheless, it is an important principle, which defends our rights in our democracy, because we weight our legal criminal system in favour of the accused—the person who must defend himself.
146WH
The other principles that we employ are taken for granted. One is the presumption of innocence: the state must make its case and prove it. The threshold of proof is another: the state must make its case beyond all reasonable doubt, not just on the balance of probabilities in a criminal case. Those principles weight the criminal system in favour of the defendant to ensure that we all have a fighting chance.
Mr. Stinchcombe: Those principles, which give the accused a fighting chance or more than that, would not be affected at all by relaxing the double jeopardy rule. They would still protect the accused.
Dr. Ladyman: I simply do not accept that. We would be tipping the balance. As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Medway said, relaxing the rule would be a wedge in the door and would erode those fundamental principles. If we are prepared to review our entire criminal legal system and consider the possibility of eventually introducing an inquisitorial system—as exists in France—let us start that debate, but not by chipping away at the principles that are the pillar on which the current system is built.
Mr. Corbett: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Dr. Ladyman: I shall make a little progress, because another colleague wants to contribute to the debate.
Those principles underpin the whole system. We have entered into what I regard as an unstated contract between the citizen and the state. In my mind, as a layperson, we have laws to protect us as individuals from the actions of other individuals and when those laws are broken, we want to see the guilty punished.
I accept entirely what my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) said about the need to punish the guilty, but it is important that the courts do not, wrongly, punish the innocent. To ensure that that does not happen and that the state does not misuse its powers to oppress individuals, we err on the side of the defendant. We make conviction a difficult process. Part of our contract with the state is that the guilty will sometimes go unpunished, because that is preferable, in order to minimise the number of occasions on which the innocent are punished. We accept that contract. I believe that, if we want to renegotiate part of it, we must renegotiate all of it.
The principle of double jeopardy is as fundamental as the presumption of innocence or the threshold of proof. Anyone who believes that we shall not move further down the road of relaxing the principle once we start, should read today's debate. It has moved from the idea of relaxing the double jeopardy rule for a crime serious enough to receive a three-year sentence to the Select Committee's idea that it should be relaxed for a crime serious enough to warrant a life sentence. The Law Commission is saying that murder and reckless manslaughter should be the test. That will not stand the test of time. Once we relax the principle, another high-profile case in the near future will force people to readdress the issue.
Mr. Winnick: Betting.
Dr. Ladyman: One or two parliamentary colleagues appear to have got into trouble recently over betting,

147WH
but I would be prepared to bet hon. and right hon. Members that, if we relax the rule as the Committee suggests, within 10 years a horrific crime, possibly involving rape or incitement to racial violence, will not fit the established criteria and people will call for the rule to be relaxed further. Eventually, we shall end up with the Law Commission's original suggestion of crimes involving a prison sentence of three years.
Mr. Winnick: My hon. Friend is making an eloquent case for the maintenance of the status quo. He seems to believe that no change is needed in the criminal law. I mentioned a rape case that did not involve a change in the double jeopardy rule as such. Should the jury not have been told about the previous acquittals? That change required a decision by the Law Lords.
Dr. Ladyman: Without knowing the details of the case, I cannot give an opinion. However, I do not believe that the criminal law is entirely immutable; we can adjust practice on occasion. In the case mentioned by my hon. Friend, the Law Lords expressed the view that it was right and proper to bring additional information to the court and make it available to the jury. On the face of it, that was reasonable. However, that is a very different matter from undermining one of the fundamental principles that currently weight the court system in favour of the defendant. If we tip the balance too far, serious dangers will arise.
Let me give one or two additional reasons why that approach is inherently dangerous. The debate on double jeopardy began as a result of the Stephen Lawrence case. The inquiry argued that that aspect of the law should be reviewed. Having considered the exceptions and restrictions suggested by the Law Commission and the Select Committee, I seriously doubt whether relaxing the rule will lead to any change in the Stephen Lawrence case. The Director of Public Prosecutions and other authorities acting on behalf of the Crown did not want to proceed with the case, because they knew that it was unlikely to succeed. Their professional advice was, "Let's build a stronger case. Let's be patient and we'll get our man in the end." That advice was ignored, so we must not pin the blame for the fact that those responsible for the death of Stephen Lawrence have not been punished on the double jeopardy law and say that it must be relaxed.
What should have happened in the Lawrence case was what happened in the case mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North. The Crown did not proceed in the case of that killing for 23 years, until it had a sufficiently strong case to be sure of conviction. That is the correct way to proceed in a case that is not sufficiently strong initially to secure a conviction. People must wait patiently and build a case.
The police gave another piece of telling evidence to the Committee. When asked, they said that not many cases would be affected by relaxing the double jeopardy rule, echoing the DPP, although the number that they gave was slightly higher. That is because cases are taken no further when someone is acquitted. In other words, it is no longer accepted that the person is innocent: the police will not carry on to discover someone else who could be guilty of the crime, but assume that the person was guilty in the first place. Once the double jeopardy change comes into effect, the police need look no
148WH
further. In future, every single acquittal will lead to further investigation of the same person, providing the police with further opportunities to get their man. That is a telling insight into the police's attitude to the relaxation. I would be worried about that if it went ahead.
Mr. Corbett: Mr. David Phillips, the chief constable of Kent, when giving evidence about homicide cases that are not resolved by a conviction, said:
We never close the case; we used to, because there used to be reports that were termed "closing reports". But, when we recently constructed the homicide manual, we decided the proper course of action was to say that there should be periodical reports which indicate the status of the investigation.
My hon. Friend's point does not apply to all cases and all circumstances.
Dr. Ladyman: I reiterate the logic behind that evidence. If the police seriously intend to keep an open mind after all cases of acquittal, the chief constable should have been able to answer the question put to him, as to how many cases a year that will involve. He should have provided a precise figure. He should have been able to say what the DPP said and offered to provide the figures in a note later. I do not accept that the police assume that these cases will remain open: the police are far more likely to assume simply that the jury made a mistake. Various cases provide clear evidence of that.
I shall conclude my comments to allow other hon. Members to take part in the debate. The key issue is clear: if we start to undermine the basic principles of our criminal justice system, we must review everything—including the adversarial system itself. We weight the system in favour of the defendant. As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Medway pointed out, it used to be a battle in which people would hire warriors to decide the outcome and leave it in the hands of God. The state is all-powerful: under the old rules, the state has Lennox Lewis at its disposal, but the defendant can hire people only as good as Joe Bugner. If Joe Bugner lands a lucky punch and knocks Lennox Lewis down, in future we are going to allow Lennox Lewis to get up, have a rest and come back with a gang of friends to have another go at the defendant. We are talking about a fundamental rewriting of the principles of the criminal legal system as we understand them in this country. I greatly hope that the House will not go down that road.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. May I reassure hon. Members that Mr. William Hill is not an Officer of the House?
4.53 pm
Mr. Paul Stinchcombe: I shall make a brief contribution to this important debate on the double jeopardy rule—the long-standing principle that no one should be tried for the same offence twice. At the outset, I also declare an interest as a barrister and past student of Islamic law. Although I never practised criminal law, I was once the junior to the chairman of the Law Commission and have been a pupil in the chambers of a law commissioner.
I mention that because the inquiry and report of the Home Affairs Committee was itself prompted by the Law Commission—in particular by its consultation

149WH
paper on double jeopardy published in October last year and subsequently by the recommendations of Sir William Macpherson and the Stephen Lawrence inquiry. In its consultation paper, the Law Commission recommended a relaxation of the double jeopardy rule in certain narrow circumstances. We considered that recommendation and agreed that change was necessary—that the double jeopardy rule should be relaxed, albeit with refinements on the Law Commission's recommendations.
I want to set out in my remarks first why I believe that the ancient rule needs to be relaxed, and secondly where and why I depart from the Law Commission, at least with respect to its initial recommendations, as to the circumstances in which the relaxation could operate. I agree that double jeopardy is an ancient rule. It dates back about 800 years in our common law tradition and, before that, to Roman law. It is not just ancient, but ingrained. Its purpose was civilising. It was to protect the citizen from the oppression of the state, to prevent the machinery of the state from repeatedly attempting to convict an individual, to prevent the oppression of such a man or woman, and to protect him or her from the repeated stress, expense and ordeal of repeated trial. We should think on that for a while.
That common law rule was born 800 years before we passed the Human Rights Act 1998. It was born in an age of trial not just by battle but by torture, an age of absolute monarchs. Yet it was born to protect the human rights of citizens. In those circumstances, it is hardly to be discarded lightly, without deep reflection. I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes): we need a compelling case before we suggest amendments. However, after mature reflection on the arguments, I believe that such a compelling case has been made.
The case can best be made by reference to the historical context to which I have referred. After all, rather a lot happens in 800 years. Indeed, with the pace of change accelerating through modern technology, rather a lot has happened in just the past eight years. Centuries ago we did not have the advantage of contemporary forensic science. No second trial, all those years ago, could bring forth missed or misunderstood evidence capable of proving that a person was present at the scene of a crime and that his or her alibi was false. No second prosecution in the previous century, let alone in mediaeval times, could determine someone's identity from a spot of blood too small for the human eye to see. It would not have been possible to find that spot of blood.
All that has changed. Forensic scientists are now capable of assisting the judicial process in ways that would have been unimaginable to our forefathers. First came fingerprinting, then genetic fingerprinting—DNA testing. In the future there will be corneal and facial mapping and enhanced closed circuit television pictures.
When such evidence can prove conclusively the innocence of someone accused of a crime, it is, quite properly, admissible, because the innocent should not be convicted. When it can prove conclusively the innocence of someone previously found guilty of a crime, again, quite properly, it is admissible so that an appeal against conviction can succeed. Given those
150WH
circumstances, on what possible basis can it be argued that when the same kind of evidence, of identical weight and identical probative value, can help to prove the guilt of someone previously found innocent, our criminal justice system must always, none the less, ignore it? Surely it is not for fear that a second trial could never be fair, because we already allow for retrials. They can be fair, especially if the emphasis of the test in law looks back rather than forward to whether the original acquittal was unsafe, without prejudging the outcome of a second trial.
Dr. Ladyman: My hon. Friend is making an eloquent case. As a scientist, the one area on which I have an open mind is that of incontrovertible new scientific evidence, which makes me feel that there is a case to be discussed. However, if that is the issue, why did the Committee not limit the proposed relaxation of the double jeopardy law to cases in which incontrovertible, new, physical, scientific evidence, which was not available at the original trial, would be applicable? I would be much happier about that than about the broad relaxation that is proposed.
Mr. Stinchcombe: At least I am happy that we may be persuading my hon. Friend about a limited relaxation of this important principle.
I shall deal with the arguments that have been raised against the suggestion. First, there is the fear that a second fair trial would not be possible. We can have second fair trials. It is suggested that the police would be lackadaisical in their investigations. Have we sunk so low in our cynicism to believe that the police would not investigate properly and would then proceed to prosecute improperly simply because of this relaxation of the rule? We are then told that we should still fear the over-zealous prosecutor. Hundreds of years ago, when the rule became enshrined in our common law tradition that made a lot of sense. We did not then have the human rights legislation or advanced rules of fair procedure. A repeat prosecution could be a genuine tool of oppression by the state. Now we have protections against that happening.
Most importantly of all, and coming back to the point that my hon. Friend has just made, hundreds of years ago a repeat prosecution could not yield the forensic evidence that it can now. Conclusive evidence of guilt can now be brought forward. If the criminal justice system, through direct operation of the law itself, fails to allow such evidence to be adduced, it fails to achieve one of its two principal purposes: not just to protect the innocent, but to protect the innocent from the guilty. When that happens, even worse follows because the criminal justice system itself falls into disrepute. That is not an idle fear: it is a real fear. Just imagine the horrific scenarios that could so easily arise as parents of raped and murdered sons and daughters are told conclusively by scientists that their children's killers are walking free. That to my mind is genuinely a vista too hideous to contemplate.
The time for this ancient rule to change has come. Science has moved on. The law should catch up with it, especially because we now have other protections for the human rights of the accused. There should be limitations on that relaxation. It would not be right, for example, to relax the rule for all crimes. The public

151WH
would not be well served by clogging courts with retrials of minor offences. The spectre hanging over many acquitted people would be unjustifiable. Where do we draw the line? The Law Commission originally suggested that it be drawn below those offences likely to attract a prison sentence of three years or more. That seems wholly unworkable. It requires conjecture as to possible sentence before guilt has even been established. That cannot conceivably be right.
The Law Commission now suggests that the line should be drawn below murder and reckless killing. I disagree with that too. Think of the offences that would thereby be excluded, such as aggravated burglary and rape. A serial rapist who breaks into the homes of women and children to assault them in their bedrooms would walk free even when we know from conclusive scientific evidence who he is. That cannot be right. Until I am persuaded otherwise, I believe that the threshold should be exactly where the Select Committee recommended it should be, so that any offence that could carry a life sentence could also be retried in appropriate circumstances.
I also disagree with two other of the Law Commission's original recommendations, although I believe that it may have moved towards the Select Committee's position. First, it recommended that a "due diligence" condition should attach to any relaxation of the rule so that new evidence could be admitted at a second trial only if it could not, with due diligence, have been adduced at the first. That means that if the police had failed to investigate a murder properly and had thereby failed to discover critical evidence of guilt before trial one, no retrial could be permitted, however conclusive of guilt that new evidence might be. That again cannot be right when one recognises the origins of the debate in the Stephen Lawrence inquiry. It would mean that the victim or the victim's family would suffer injustice twice, once at the hands of incompetent police officers and then at the hands of the justice system itself. It would mean even more than that. It would mean that the second injustice would be suffered precisely because of the incompetence of the police officers. That is not tenable in a modern society.
Finally, but with more caution, I do not agree with the Law Commission's original recommendation that the relaxation of the double jeopardy rule should not have retrospective effect. I am always slow to support retrospective enforcement, but I can conceive of nothing more self-evidently appropriate than where the sole purpose of the legislation in question is to prevent past miscarriages of justice. The double jeopardy rule has been an integral part of our criminal legal system for many centuries, but the time has now come to relax it in order better to protect the integrity of the system and of the citizens of this country. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Medway rightly said that we could never have a perfect judicial or criminal justice system, but we can have a better one, and this is one improvement that we should make.
5.5 pm
Mr. Boateng: Unlike the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins), I am not and never have been an opponent of the experiment that sees debates such as this conducted in this Chamber. I have sat through and
152WH
contributed to a number of them. I am bound to say, however, that I have never sat through or heard a better debate in this Chamber than that in which we have been privileged to participate this afternoon. If ever there was a justification for the existence of a Chamber—and, in my view, for the right of Select Committees to ensure that their reports are debated on the Floor of the House—this afternoon has proved it. The balance of the argument has fallen in favour of hon. Members whose proposals for the resolution of this issue are along the lines of those of the Select Committee and of the interim findings of the Law Commission. That is not surprising, as the Select Committee was so well represented by the hon. Members who have spoken this afternoon.
None the less, I do not intend to express a view one way or the other. Views were put strongly and with conviction on the other side of the argument, by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews) and by my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman). The argument will run for some time. On the Government's behalf, I urge any who take an interest in our proceedings to engage with the argument if they feel a desire to do so. Such people should make representations to the Government, who are anxious to ensure that we proceed with the widest possible consultation. The work of the Select Committee has helped enormously. The Law Commission has indicated an interest in the contributions that have been made during today's debate and will take them into consideration as it prepares its final report.
One or two things struck me forcibly from this good debate. Obviously, one of them was the introduction given by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett), who ably represented the balance and force of the arguments advanced in the Select Committee report. I was struck also by the passion expressed on behalf of the victims by my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick). Important contributions were also made by a number of other hon. Members. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Medway expounded his argument with his usual robustness. It is a pity that he was not in his place to hear the comprehensive and forensic dissection of his arguments provided by my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Stinchcombe). That was a job well done, if I may say so as a mere observer. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Medway would have done well to hear that contribution, and I hope that his attention is drawn to it. I shall certainly do so, and I shall long remember it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton) made an important contribution. As a lawyer myself, I shall particularly remember the suggestion that doctors bury their mistakes, while we lawyers merely connive in their acquittal, and that the public suffer either way. That was a very powerful image indeed.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet seems to have little time for lawyers and cannot think of a worse way of earning a living. He was good enough to share with us the various things that he would want to know if he were an innocent man accused of a crime.

153WH
Having heard my hon. Friend, the first thing that he would probably want to know was the name of a good lawyer.
Mr. Winnick: Are you offering?
Mr. Boateng: We hear what he says, and we take his attack on the legal profession with a pinch of salt. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for
154WH
Erdington says that he need look no further than my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough, and there is much force in that argument.
It has been a good debate that has contributed to our understanding of the issues, and I add my voice to those who have thanked the members and Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee for making it possible.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twelve minutes past Five o'clock.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Business Relations
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many new regulations on business were introduced by his Department in the financial year 1999–2000. [134771]

  Ms Hewitt
  My Department was responsible for 172 regulations affecting business in this period. Of these, 135 had no cost impact on business and 18 reduced businesses' costs. Sixty-three of them were Orders licensing businesses as public telecommunications providers.

  Virgin Group
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will establish an inquiry into the privatisation in 1988 of the Virgin Group and the subsequent re-sale in 1989 of a 25 per cent. stake in that company to the Pony Canyon Company. [134618]

  Dr. Howells
  If the hon. Member sends me any evidence in support of this request I will consider it.

  Merger Regime
  Mr. Goggins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the Government's plans for reforming the merger regime. [135684]

  Mr. Byers
  In August last year the Government published proposals for reforming the UK's system of merger regulation and invited interested parties to comment on them.

  When I launched the consultation I set out key principles which a reformed regime should reflect. In particular, it needed to provide effective and proportionate control of mergers which had harmful effects; be clear, transparent, consistent and fair; and impose minimum burdens on those using it. I proposed two fundamental reforms to the current regime. First, the framework for decisions should be clarified, focusing it more clearly on competition; and secondly, ministerial involvement in merger decisions should be minimised. In addition, I put forward a number of more detailed proposals for reform covering issues such as the status of the independent competition authorities, exceptional interest cases and timetables.

  We received 60 representations from a broad range of companies, competition lawyers, trade unions, business and consumer organisations, regulatory bodies and a number of individuals. There was a broad support for minimising ministerial involvement and moving towards a competition-based test. Respondents also provided useful views on other aspects of the regime.
  154W
  I am publishing today the Government's response to this consultation, which summarises the views received and sets out proposals for the future.

  In summary:
  responsibility for making decisions in merger cases should be given to the independent competition authorities; the Secretary of State should only become involved in the small minority of cases which raise defined exceptional public interest issues;
  decisions should be made by the competition authorities against a competition-based test rather than against the current public interest test;
  the division of responsibility between the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) and the Competition Commission (CC) should remain unaltered: the OFT will conduct the first stage, preliminary investigation into a merger and the CC will carry out a second-stage, in-depth inquiry if merited;
  the system of voluntary notification for all mergers, which business clearly values, should be retained;
  wherever possible timetables for investigations should be tightened.

  We intend to define national security in the legislation from the outset as an area raising issues of exceptional public interest. In addition, we intend to give the Secretary of State a reserve power to define further specific exceptional public interest criteria where ministerial involvement in the mergers process may be necessary, although there are no current plans to make any such orders. This power will be subject to the approval of Parliament.

  There are a number of more detailed issues set out in the document, including the specific form of the competition test and of the qualifying thresholds, and alternative approaches to develop the Competition Commission's procedures for identifying remedies. The Government would welcome further views on aspects of these. While the principles underlying the reforms are clear, today's announcement represents a further stage in consultation, not the end of the process. We will continue to develop the detail of the proposals, consulting with interested parties where appropriate.

  The Government intend to introduce legislation designed to implement the measures set out in the document as soon as parliamentary time permits.

  However, in light of the broad support among consultation responses for the thrust of the reforms, I have been examining ways of making progress towards operating the current regime consistently with the principles underlying the reforms, so far as is possible within the existing framework. I am now, therefore, adopting a new policy in relation to the advice I receive from the Director General of Fair Trading.

  First, I confirm I will continue to refer cases to the Competition Commission primarily on competition grounds.

  But I wish to go further, in advance of legislation.

  My policy from today will be to accept the advice I receive from the Director General of Fair Trading on whether or not to refer merger cases to the Competition Commission, save in exceptional circumstances.

  I do not expect exceptional circumstances to arise often. It may be appropriate for me to intervene, for example, where a merger raises national security issues or where

  155W
  there are other unusual circumstances, such as where there is a material change after the submission of the DGFT's advice, or where the advice of the DGFT conflicts with the views of sectoral regulators.

  I think that it is right that the role of the Director General of Fair Trading should be emphasised in this way. This policy currently covers only my decisions following the advice of the DGFT on reference decisions (including undertakings in lieu). I intend to review in 12 months time the position in relation to my decisions following advice from the Competition Commission after a full inquiry into a referred merger.

  Today's announcement reflects my view that the Director General is best placed to assess competition issues in individual cases. As previously, it will be for the Director General to decide on the process he thinks best serves him in the formulation of his advice. Departmental officials will continue to assist in this process where the Director General of Fair Trading considers this appropriate.

  Lastly, I want to take what action I can to reduce the burdens of the current system on business. To this end I propose to exempt small firms from paying merger fees. I am publishing draft proposals for doing this today and seeking interested parties' views on them.

  Coal Industry
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what grant money has been paid to the coal industry since his announcements offering £100 million to the industry. [134977]

  Mrs. Liddell
  On 27 July, I announced that the UK Government had formally applied to the European Commission for its approval to pay operating aid to United Kingdom coal producers over the period to July 2002. The European Commission is still considering our application, so no grant money has yet been paid to the coal industry under this scheme.

  Nissan
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he has obtained EU approval for Government funding to Nissan. [134979]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  Notification of an RSA grant to Nissan to secure the Micra project has been made to the European Commission and a response is awaited.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on what terms he offered Nissan –40 million of Government aid; and when he plans to pay Nissan such grant. [134976]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  An offer of RSA has been made to Nissan in an effort to ensure the Micra project for its Sunderland plant. The offer was made subject to European Commission approval under the Motor Vehicle State Aid Framework.

  If the Commission approves the offer and Nissan decide to locate the Micra project in Sunderland, payments will be made when agreed capital expenditure and job targets are met.

  New Millennium Experience Company
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, if his Department will launch an inquiry to establish whether the New Millennium Experience Company has fulfilled its duties under section 221 of the Companies Act 1985 to maintain certain specific accounting records, with particular reference to maintaining a record of assets and liabilities. [134429]

  Dr. Howells
  As is known already, the National Audit Office are inquiring into the New Millennium Experience Company Limited. The findings of the inquiry are expected to be published in early November and will be considered by the Public Accounts Committee. Accordingly, it would be both premature and a wasteful duplication of resources for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to appoint inspectors at this stage.

  Robert Maxwell
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) of 20 June 2000,Official Report, column 142W, regarding Robert Maxwell, when he expects to receive a report from the inspectors appointed on 8 June 1992 under the Companies Acts to investigate the affairs and membership of Mirror Group Newspapers plc; and what has been the cost to date of the inspection. [134879]

  Dr. Howells
  The inspectors have not completed their inquiries and so have not yet submitted their report to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. Although I am hopeful that these inquiries will be completed shortly, the inspectors are independent and I am unable to say when this is likely to be. The cost of the inspection to date (excluding Value Added Tax) is £7,946,344.

DEFENCE

  Joint Force Harrier Programme
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the impact of the merging of the Royal Air Force's and Royal Navy's trade structures resulting from the Joint Force Harrier programme; and if he will make a statement. [134255]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Joint Force Harrier (JFH) initiative does not require the aircraft engineering trade structures of the Royal Air Force and Royal Navy to be merged. For the present, Royal Air Force Harrier squadrons and Royal Navy Sea Harrier squadrons will employ engineering personnel of their own services, organised within their existing trade groups and specialisations. It would not be practicable, nor is it desired, to introduce new trade structures for JFH that do not align with wider RAF and RN arrangements.

  However, the desirability of converging aircraft engineering trade structures has been recognised, and the training and employment of aircraft engineering personnel is under review at many levels within MOD departments on a tri-service basis. The potential for JFH to act as a sounding board and catalyst for this is clear, especially

  157W
  after collocation in 2003 when RAF and RN engineers will be working alongside each other at RAF Cottesmore and RAF Wittering.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the cost is to(a) the Royal Air Force and (b) the Royal Navy of the Joint Force Harrier programme; when the programme is expected to be completed; and if he will make a statement. [134249]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Joint Force Harrier programme is being managed by Royal Air Force Strike Command (STC), under the auspices of Air Officer Commanding No. 3 Group. Under current plans (as agreed by the Joint COS), the programme is due to be completed in the summer of 2003, when the FA2 Sea Harrier squadrons based at RNAS Yeovilton will have relocated to RAF Stations Cottesmore and Wittering. Work is already under way to prepare the two sites for the arrival and collocation of the Royal Naval elements. The present budget for the additional capital works (and other relocation-related costs) is approximately £11 million, the costs of which are being borne by RAF Strike Command.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the impact of the joint force Harrier programme on the operational capability and engineering efficiency of the RAF's GR7 and the Royal Navy's FA2 Harriers; and if he will make a statement. [134251]

  Mr. Spellar
  The advances made in Joint Force Harrier (JFH) operational capability have already been demonstrated on the world stage. In the first six months of its existence, No. 3 Group of RAF Strike Command which own JFH and, in particular, its embarked RAF Harrier GR7 and Navy Sea Harrier FA2 squadrons, have made major contributions to Operation Palliser (Sierra Leone) as well as the recent Mediterranean deployment by the aircraft carrier HMS Invincible. As an international means of power projection, an aircraft carrier with fully integrated JFH units embarked is a considerable national asset and one which has already proved its potent deterrent value. The benefits have also been significant in the supporting areas where a slim, but truly joint staff organisation allows for rapid planning and execution of integrated operations. This arrangement also benefits exercise planning and will lead to more integrated—and therefore considerably improved—use of training opportunities.

  At station and squadron level, the engineering efficiency of JFH units will not be affected in the short term, as the units remain at their current air stations. In the longer term, direct engineering efficiencies are limited by the significant differences between the Harrier GR7 and the Sea Harrier FA2 aircraft and their systems. However, maximum use is being made of collocation in 2003 to develop integrated support facilities for RAF and RN aircraft, an example being a combined facility for the repair and test of Pegasus engines. In the longer term, convergence of trade structures is expected to deliver a more flexible and deplorable workforce. Within RAF Strike Command, the Joint Force Harrier Role Office now discharges a number of engineering functions that were previously split between a number of departments and commands. This Role Office is built as a lean, joint organisation and provides key support to joint force Harrier staffs and other departments.
  158W
  For the future, JFH will take part in the development of new support concepts and technologies associated with the Future Carrier Borne Aircraft (FCBA). These are intended to deliver significant through-life savings compared to current Harrier and Sea Harrier aircraft by large reductions in the engineering effort required in service.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how the single service identities of the RAF's Harrier GR7 and the Royal Navy's Harrier FA2 are maintained within the joint force Harrier programme; and if he will make a statement. [134250]

  Mr. Spellar
  In the Joint Force Harrier (JFH), single service ethos and identity will continue to be fostered within the individual communities. In tandem, a joint force ethos is developing. Both RN and RAF JFH squadrons will wear the uniform and ranks of their parent service and will be commanded by officers from the relevant service. Each service element of the JFH remains under full single-service command, including terms and conditions of service, disciplinary matters, and individual career development. These arrangements are planned to continue up to, and beyond, the Future Carrier Borne Aircraft/ the future aircraft carrier (CVF) era. Higher Command initiatives, such as the Armed Forces Overarching Personnel Strategy underpin the implementation of JFH. The integration of RAF and RN personnel as 'one company' is a clearly stated objective, and HQ 3Gp of RAF Strike Command sponsors a number of Working Groups that address various subject-related topics. In particular, the CVS/JFH Integration Working Group receives comprehensive debriefings after JFH operational and exercise detachments; from these reports 'best practice' is identified and adopted (after full consultation has taken place with the relevant single-service authorities).

  ARMYMAIL
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many service personnel are connected by the ARMYMAIL electronic mail system supplied by Bull Information Systems Ltd.; at what cost; and if he will make a statement. [133729]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 23 October 2000]The ARMYMAIL electronic mail system was renamed the Electronic Messaging Service (EMS) in response to the wider tri-Service Defence community it now serves. The purpose of EMS is to provide a managed electronic mail interconnection service between separate information system communities in the Ministry of Defence (MOD). Subscription to EMS is on a communities-by-communities basis, and hence the number of potential users of the Service is the total number of users within each of the connected communities. There is currently a total of almost 82,000 members of the subscribing communities with the Army, RAF and MOD civilian organisations, including Defence agencies. The total cost of the service, paid to Bull Information Systems Ltd., is approximately £2.1 million per annum, based on the current usage.

  Budget Allocations
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what percentage of(a) the Royal Air Force's

  159W
  annual budget is allocated to its Harrier GR7 and (b) the Royal Navy's budget is allocated to its Harrier FA2; and if he will make a statement. [134248]

  Mr. Spellar
  On 1 April, following the re-organisation of Royal Air Force Strike Command (STC), budgetary responsibility for both the RAF Harrier GR7 and the Navy Sea Harrier FA2 transferred to Joint Force Harrier (JFH) under the command of No. 3 Group at STC. The Group's resource budget for the operation of the Joint Harrier fleet for financial year 2000–01 is approximately £330 million, which equates to 8.2 per cent. of the RAF Strike Command budget. While this includes the majority of costs relating to the Harrier FA2, some minor support costs are continuing to be borne by the Royal Navy pending the collocation of the Joint Force Harrier fleet in the summer of 2003.

  In addition, further costs relating to the Harrier fleet are accounted for elsewhere in the Department—for example, RAF Personnel and Training Command and the Defence Logistics Organisation (DLO), who are, respectively, responsible for the production of trained manpower and equipment support.

  HMS Prince of Wales
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what action he plans to take concerning the removal of two propellors from the wreck of HMS Prince of Wales'; and if he will make a statement. [134469]

  Dr. Moonie
  We are aware of reports that HMS Repulse has lost two of her port side propellers. The first reported missing in the 1970s. The second was reported missing in October 1999.

  My Department would act on any clear evidence that criminal activities are taking place.

  We are not aware of any reports that HMS Prince of Wales has lost propellers.

  War Graves at Sea
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent discussions he has had with other Governments about the protection of war graves at sea; and if he will make a statement. [134470]

  Dr. Moonie
  In conjunction with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my officials have been represented at UNESCO meetings to discuss the Draft Convention of the Protection of Underwater Cultural Heritage. The issue of war graves has been discussed.

  My officials have periodic informal contact with officials from Embassies in London to discuss the war graves issue. Record of such contacts are not kept.

  Official Residences
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will provide a breadown of(a) the annual running costs, including separate breakdowns for the maintenance, furniture and equipment costs, for each official service residence, (b) the subject matter of contracts of more than £5,000 for each residence and (c) the annual cost of domestic and household staff for each residence; and if
  160W
  he will identify the county in which each official service residence is situated and the rank of the officer in residence. [134431]

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

  Departmental Building Costs
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to renovate his Department's headquarters in Whitehall. [134433]

  Dr. Moonie
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for St. Albans (Mr. Pollard) on 17 May 2000,Official Report, columns 162–63W.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Magistrates Courts
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what action she is taking to improve security in magistrates courts. [134228]

  Jane Kennedy
  Responsibility for security in magistrates courts rests with the Magistrates Courts Committee. The Lord Chancellor's Department has supported the issue of guidance to Magistrates Courts Committees on preventing violence to staff, magistrates and courts users. Where bids are received the Magistrates Courts Committees paying authority to install security equipment in court buildings, the Department treats them as a high priority for capital funding allocations. The Department also has a programme for the installation of secure docks where a need has been identified.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Act 2000
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he received the Government Actuary's report under section 36 of the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Act 2000; and when he will lay it before Parliament. [134263]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Government Actuary is currently finalising his report. It will be published when it is completed.

  Family Credit
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 27 July 2000,Official Report, column 878W, if he will publish his estimate of the number of people entitled to family credit in 1998–99. [134576]

  Angela Eagle
  Estimates of numbers entitled to Family Credit in 1998–99 will be published on 8 December 2000 in "Income related benefits—estimates of take-up", a copy of which will be available in the Library.

  Child Support Scheme
  Mr. Laxton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to improve delivery of the child support scheme. [135682]

  Angela Eagle
  The Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Act 2000 provides the legislative basis for a reformed, and more customer focused, child support scheme. We are today placing in the Libraries copies of our improvement plan, "Operational Vision—Reforming the Child Support Scheme", which sets out the way in which the new service is to be delivered. Additional copies for hon. Members are available from the Vote Office.

  Fraud
  Mr. Goggins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he will publish the inspection report of the Benefit Fraud Inspectorate in respect of Bristol City Council [135681]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Benefit Fraud Inspectorate report was published today in respect of Bristol City Council and copies of the report have been placed in the Library.

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

  BFI reports a lack of senior management accountability in Bristol City Council. Management information was found to be poor with no effective means of measuring and monitoring performance at a corporate level and the council was unable to reconcile information between different accounting systems. BFI states this led them to question the integrity of the data used to claim DSS subsidy.

  Inspectors found serious deficiencies in the council's administration of benefits and efforts to counter fraud which require immediate attention. The report notes serious concerns about weaknesses in the assessment, control and payment of benefit. The BFI concluded that the council had no effective assurance that claims were calculated correctly from the outset.

  The classification of overpayments and recovery of debts was considered to be poorly managed across sites with no specific policy for the recovery of Housing Benefit overpayments. The council could not provide details of debts recovered.

  In the area of counter-fraud activities, the BFI raises concern about the limited resources being deployed and the general poor quality of investigations. Despite this, the council has had some success in prosecuting benefit cheats.

  More positively, Inspectors found that Bristol City Council keeps the public informed about access to benefits and has a well designed claim form. A formal and structured training and development programme is operated for staff and implementation of the Verification Framework in 1999 had been well managed.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is now considering the report and will be asking the council for its proposals in response to the findings and recommendations of the BFI.
  162W
  Mr. Goggins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he expects to publish the inspection report of the Benefit Fraud Inspectorate in respect of Nottingham City Council. [135678]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Benefit Fraud Inspectorate report in respect of Nottingham City Council was published on 5 October 2000, during parliamentary recess. Copies of the report have been placed in the Library.

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

  Inspectors found the council's staff committed to battling against arrears of work and striving to overcome long-term problems associated with a shortfall in staff resources and deficiencies in management and control.

  The report identifies some effective work in the benefits processing area, but also several areas of deficiency. The BFI considered the council needed to introduce a structured regime of checking to gain necessary management assurance about security, accuracy and quality in benefit administration. The report states that the council's management needs to be more actively involved and that security concerns and audit recommendations should be addressed promptly.

  The BFI found counter-fraud work was particularly weak, despite a steer from council members in 1997 that there was support for effective action to be pursued against fraudsters. To address this, the BFI recommends a thorough review of all counter-fraud operations.

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

  Mr. Goggins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he expects to publish the inspection report of the Benefit Fraud Inspectorate in respect of Burnley Borough Council. [135677]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Benefit Fraud Inspectorate report in respect of Burnley Borough Council was published on 5 October, during parliamentary recess. Copies of the report have been placed in the Library.

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

  The BFI reports that, at the time of the inspection, the council was providing a poor service to claimants, particularly in the time taken to process many claims. The report identifies weaknesses in the council's application of the Verification Framework (VF) and a failure to ensure all appropriate references had been made to the Rent Officer.

  The report notes that little action had been taken by the council to address potential problems associated with private landlord cases which make up a high proportion of the claims case load and represent one of the highest risk areas. BFI identified that the council needs to

  163W
  introduce effective liaison arrangements with its local landlords and for relevant information to be collected so that risks can be assessed.

  Inspectors report that the work of the counter-fraud section was not managed effectively and there was a need for the council to use its fraud database to analyse risk categories and prosecute offenders where appropriate.

  During the inspection, the council was planning to clear arrears of work and recruit and train additional staff. The BFI considered work backlogs needed to be tackled as a matter of urgency. A reduction in delays for processing claims and tightening the application of the VF in the areas specified in the BFI report could, inspectors say, greatly improve the service provided to claimants, and, at the same time, tighten the gateway to benefits.

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

  Mr. Goggins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, when he expects to publish the inspection report of the Benefit Fraud Inspectorate in respect of Neath Port Talbot County Borough Council. [135676]

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

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

  The BFI report found that Neath Port Talbot County Borough Council performed well in some areas and that staff were both helpful and committed to raising the standard of benefit delivery and counter-fraud work. However noticeable differences in performance and procedure were identified between the two sites of Neath and Port Talbot.

  Inspectors considered that some good counter-fraud practices had been introduced, such as a prosecutions panel. However, the BFI found that the council did not make effective use of the statutory powers for inspectors given by the 1997 Fraud Act. As well as identifying a need to improve investigation techniques, the report notes a lack of performance targets for investigators.

  Inspectors state overpayments recovery was a particularly weak area with no specific overpayment policy and no targets for staff. There was no management information collected which could have helped the council to prevent overpayments occurring. Finally, because classification of overpayments were poor and essential procedures are not followed, the BFI raised doubts about the validity of the council's subsidy claim.

  More positively, inspectors found the council has elected member support for its counter-fraud efforts. It has recently introduced the Verification Framework, which will provide a minimum set of standards for ensuring verification checks are made on claims.
  164W
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is now considering the report and has asked the council for their proposals in response to the findings and recommendations of the BFI.

  Mr. Goggins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he will publish the inspection report of the Benefit Fraud Inspectorate in respect of Westminster City Council [135680]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Benefit Fraud Inspectorate report was published today in respect of Westminster City Council and copies of the report have been placed in the Library.

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

  The BFI reports that the council has a strong client side team to manage its contracted out benefit administration and counter fraud work. However, the complex management framework and associated organisational arrangements has led to inefficiencies and delays in processes. The report notes that significant work will be required by the council before it can give an assurance that the right amount of benefit goes to the right person in every case.

  Inspectors found levels of verification being applied to claims did not meet the minimum standards of the Verification Framework (VF) and recommend full implementation of the VF.

  Inspectors considered the council's benefits claim form required enhancement so as to reduce the number of requests made to claimants for further information. The BFI also recommends formal liaison arrangements should be introduced with private sector landlords. Inspectors report there is potential for the council to make greater use of statutory powers for the recovery of overpayments from private landlords and for registering debts with the court.

  The report notes the council's strong counter-fraud stance which is supported by elected members. BFI states performance in fraud investigations would be improved if the council set targets for investigations and monitored outcomes.

  Inspectors noted a number of good practices and initiatives such as the council's work with the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Region's Rough Sleepers Unit and work undertaken to improve liaison arrangements between the Benefit Service and the Housing Department.

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

  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what the baseline figure is for the amount of fraud and error in income support and jobseeker's allowance against which the targets in the Comprehensive Spending Review will be measured in(a) cash terms and (b) as a proportion of the total expenditure on these benefits. [134582]
  165W
  Mr. Rooker
  The target in the Comprehensive Spending Review is to reduce the percentage of loss from fraud and error in Income Support and Jobseeker's Allowance. The baseline figure as a proportion of total expenditure on these benefits is 9 per cent.

  Cold Weather Payments
  Mr. Hope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he will announce the outcome of the annual review of the Cold Weather Payments scheme; and if he will make a statement. [135679]

  Angela Eagle
  Following advice from the Meteorological Office, the annual review of the Cold Weather Payments scheme has now been completed. Amending regulations were laid on 6 October 2000 and will come into force on 1 November, in time for the beginning of the winter period.

  One of the weather stations used in the scheme last winter, Eskmeals, which is situated on the Cumbrian coast, is closing. It has therefore been replaced in the scheme by the weather stations at Walney Island, which is a little further south along the coast. There have also been some changes by Royal Mail to postcodes, which have been reflected in the amending regulations.

  Cold Weather Payments are separate from, and in addition to, Winter Fuel Payments, which are paid to eligible people from age 60.

  I have written to each of the hon. Members affected by the changes.

  Minimum Income Guarantee
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the effect of raising the level of the Minimum Income Guarantee to £90 on the number of pensioners receiving(a) Income Support, (b) Housing Benefit and (c) Council Tax Benefits assuming that the starting thresholds for the Housing Benefit were adjusted in line. [134595]

  Mr. Bayley
  The estimated effect of raising the level of the Minimum Income Guarantee (MIG) to £90 on successful new claims would be 65,000 Income Support/MIG claims, 10,000 Housing Benefit claims and 20,000 Council Tax Benefit claims—assuming that the thresholds for Housing Benefit were adjusted in line.

  Job Grant
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the new Job Grant. [132609]

  Angela Eagle
  We are introducing a new initiative from April 2001, known as the Job Grant.

  For the first time, cash help with the transition from welfare to work will be available to most longer term claimants of a range of benefits. Lone parents will continue to benefit from the Lone Parent Run-On, but other claimants of Income Support (IS), Jobseekers Allowance (JSA), Incapacity Benefit (IB), or Severe Disablement Allowance (SDA) who are 25 or over and have been on benefit for at least a year, and who are moving into full-time work which is expected to last for five weeks or more, will now get a flat rate non-taxable
  166W
  payment of £100. Jobseekers who are under 25 will continue to benefit from the intensive help offered by the New Deal for Young People.

  The Job Grant will replace the Jobfinders Grant and Job Match payments. The new grant will be simpler, more universal and will have fewer conditions.

  SERPS
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if his proposed preserved rights scheme for entitlement to inherited SERPS entitlement will cover all of those who were actively misled about the rules of the SERPS scheme whether or not they then made a decision in the light of that misinformation which was to their detriment. [134593]

  Mr. Rooker
  The scheme will provide redress for those people who received incorrect or incomplete information about SERPS inheritance, who relied on that information in deciding what, if any, arrangements to make to protect the financial position of their spouse or themselves, and who would or might have acted differently if they had received correct and complete information.

WALES

  Teachers
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many full-time and part-time teachers are employed by each education authority in Wales. [134910]

  Mr. Hanson
  Since 1 July 1999, this has been a matter for the National Assembly for Wales.

  St. David's Day
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had with the First Secretary of the National Assembly concerning the recognition of St. David's Day as an official holiday in Wales; and if he will make a statement. [134191]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The First Minister has written to me asking whether the UK Government would consider making St. David's Day an additional bank holiday in Wales. I meet with my right hon. Friend on a regular basis when we discuss this and similar matters.

  NHS
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many NHS registered dentists there are per head of the population in each constituency in Wales. [135240]

  Mr. Hanson
  Since 1 July 1999, this has been a matter for the National Assembly for Wales.

  Lords-lieutenant
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 7 July 2000,Official Report, column 315W, regarding Lords-lieutenant, what expenditure was incurred by his Department in support of each Lord-lieutenant in the financial year 1999–2000. [134975]
  167W
  Mr. Paul Murphy
  Following the rectification of an accounting error, total expenditure in the financial year 1999–2000 has been revised downwards to £17,680.75. This includes stationery costs of £1,890.58, which cannot be apportioned between the eight lieutenancies.

  Miscellaneous expenses paid to each Lord Lieutenant were as follows:

  Clwyd—nil

  Dyfed—£4,051.52

  Gwent—£2,119.24

  Gwynedd—£532.60

  Mid Glamorgan—nil

  Powys—£2,230.20

  South Glamorgan-£6,856.61

  West Glamorgan—nil.

HEALTH

  NHS Treatment
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidelines he has given to the NHS as to the relevance of a patient's age to the quality of treatment provided by the NHS. [135013]

  Top 10 preparations in terms of prescription items dispensed in the community in 1999—England

  Prescription

  Net ingredient

  Drug name

  Items (Thousand)

  Cost (£000)

  Cost per item (£)

  Aspirin Disper_Tab 75mg

  10,848.3

  3,640.4

  0.34

  Salbutamol_Inha 100mcg (200D)

  8,527.9

  25,334.9

  2.97

  Co-Proxamol_Tab 32.5mg/325mg

  8,486.7

  13,517.6

  1.59

  Bendrofluazide_Tab 2.5mg

  7,158.8

  9,008.2

  1.26

  Amoxycillin_Cap 250mg

  6,181.7

  9,906.6

  1.60

  Paracet_Tab 500mg

  5,958.9

  3,581.4

  0.60

  Frusemide_Tab 40mg

  5,706.3

  16,452.5

  2.88

  Atenolol_Tab 50mg

  5,110.4

  11,574.4

  2.26

  Lactulose_Soln 3.-1g-3.7g/5ml

  4,260.8

  11,607.0

  2.72

  Losec_Cap E/C 20mg

  3,903.2

  156,654.3

  40.13

  Total

  66,143.0

  261,277.3

  3.95

  Notes:

  1. The prescription information is from the Prescription Cost Analysis (PCA) system and is based on a full analysis of all prescriptions dispensed in the community, ie by community pharmacists and appliance contractors, dispensing doctors and prescriptions submitted by prescribing doctors for items personally administered in England. 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 hospital or private prescriptions.

  2. The net ingredient cost (NIC) is the basic cost of a drug. This cost does not take account of discounts, dispensing costs, fees or prescription charges income.

  3. Most of these items were prescribed by general practitioners; the main exception being Amoxycillin which dentists prescribed almost 1 million items

  Foreign National Patients
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action he is taking(a) to discover the extent and (b) to diminish misuse of the National Health Service by unauthorised foreign national patients. [134291]

  Ms Stuart
  Access to National Health Service hospital treatment is based on residence in the United Kingdom, not nationality. All patients should be asked as part of
  168W
  Mr. Hutton
  The National Health Service Plan, announced in July, made it clear that all NHS patients should have access to high-quality services designed round their clinical needs.

  Discrimination on the grounds of age within the NHS is completely unacceptable. The Plan made it clear that we will challenge and remove any arbitrary policies based on age.

  The National Service Framework (NSF) for Older People, to be published later this year and introduced from April 2001, will help to ensure that ageism is not tolerated in the NHS. The NSF will for the first time set national standards and define service models for older people's health and social care.

  Drugs
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the 10 preparations most prescribed by National Health Service general practitioners during the last year for which figures are available, stating, in each case,(a) the average cost during that year of the ingredients in each preparation dispensed and (b) the total number of prescriptions issued during the year. [134623]

  Mr. Denham
  The table gives details of the number of items and net ingredient cost for the top 10 preparations (in terms of items) dispensed in the community. The majority of these will have been prescribed by general practitioners.

  routine admission procedures about their normal place of residence and patients who are identified as not ordinarily resident in the UK should be further interviewed to establish if charges are appropriate. The relevant legislation is The National Health Service (Charges to Overseas Visitors) Regulations 1989.

  Work is currently under way to review the charging regulations and guidance. This will include consideration of potential abuse of the system.

  Aricept
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment his Department has made of the research by the University of Southampton into the clinical effectiveness of Aricept. [134674]

  Mr. Denham
  Evidence relating to the clinical and cost effectiveness of Aricept is being considered by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence. They are currently consulting on their provisional conclusions ("Provisional Appraisal Determination") which are confidential to the parties involved. Their final conclusions ("Final Appraisal Determination") are expected in December 2000.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what targets he sets for the speed of ministerial replies to correspondence from hon. Members; and to what extent his Department has met those targets. [134589]

  Ms Stuart
  The Department has a Service First target set by the Cabinet Office of replying to all correspondence within 20 working days. There is no provision for fast tracking replies to correspondence to hon. Members.

  Social Services (Worcestershire)
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if supplementary credit approvals granted to the Social Services Department of Worcestershire County Council in earlier financial years which remain unused can be applied to reduce the projected overspend of this department. [134477]

  Mr. Hutton
  The supplementary credit approvals issued to Worcestershire County Council by the Department have been for capital projects related to mental health services and cannot be used to reduce projected overspends by its social services department.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Gift Shops Rulers
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, representing the House of Commons Commission, for what reason the House of Commons gift shops sell rulers that are not marked in imperial measurements; and if he will ensure that such rulers are stocked. [134201]

  Mr. Kirkwood
  This is a matter for the Director of Catering Services. I shall ask her to write to the hon. Member.

SCOTLAND

  Lord-lieutenants
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his answer of 17 July 2000,Official Report, column 58W, on lord-lieutenants, what expenditure was incurred by his Department in support of each lord-lieutenant in the financial year 1999–2000. [134857]
  170W
  Dr. Reid
  Legislative responsibility for lieutenancy matters is reserved. However, lord-lieutenants may claim reimbursement of expenses from the Secretary of Commissions for Scotland. I understand from the Scottish Executive that the expenditure incurred on each lord-lieutenant's expenses in the financial year 1999–2000 was as follows:

  Lieutenancy

  Expenses (£)

  Aberdeenshire

  4,359

  Angus

  —

  Argyll and Bute

  1,153

  Ayrshire and Arran

  2,545

  Banffshire

  1,597

  Berwickshire

  492

  Caithness

  1,664

  Clackmannan

  —

  Dumfries

  —

  Dunbartonshire

  2,779

  East Lothian

  347

  Fife

  1,277

  Inverness

  911

  Kincardineshire

  421

  Lanarkshire

  49

  Midlothian

  450

  Moray

  2,125

  Nairn

  —

  Orkney

  265

  Perth and Kinross

  —

  Renfrewshire

  788

  Ross and Cromarty

  —

  Roxburgh, Ettrick and Lauderdale

  407

  Shetland

  1,745

  Stewartry of Kirkcudbright

  775

  Stirling and Falkirk

  310

  Sutherland

  698

  Tweeddale

  45

  Western Isles

  2,186

  West Lothian

  —

  Wigtown

  553

  The ex-officio lord-lieutenants (Lord Provosts) of the four cities do not claim expenses.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Stakeholder Pensions
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to offer stakeholder pensions to(a) new and (b) existing local government staff. [134371]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  There are no plans at present to offer stakeholder pensions for new or existing local government staff who are subject to the Local Government Pension Scheme. The scheme contains no restrictions on access and will not have to provide a stakeholder pension arrangement for its employees. The legal obligation of local authority employers to provide stakeholder pensions for employees not subject to the Local Government Pension Scheme will be a matter for them to consider under the provisions of the Stakeholder Pensions Regulations, which came into force earlier this month.

  Local Authority Housing
  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to enable local authorities to improve the regulation of houses in multiple occupation. [134729]

  Mr. Mullin
  We consulted last year on proposals for compulsory licensing of houses in multiple occupation in England, and there was a parallel consultation in Wales. We will introduce primary legislation for England and Wales when parliamentary time allows. In Wales, secondary legislation and detailed arrangements are matters for the National Assembly.

  Millennium Dome
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what advice he has received concerning the value of the Dome site(a) with the Dome in place and (b) with the Dome removed. [134486]

  Ms Armstrong
  A pre-sale valuation of the Dome site has been undertaken in the context of the competition to identify a use for the Dome when the Millennium Experience finishes. The Government estimate of the financial value of the site is commercially confidential while the process to secure a buyer continues.

  World Athletics Championships
  Mr. Faber
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the transport improvements necessary to enable Picketts Lock to host the World Athletic Championships in 2005. [134834]

  Mr. Hill
  None. It is for the project partners to commission the appropriate assessment.

  Thrombosis
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what data he collates on the numbers of air passengers developing thrombosis on long distance and short distance flights. [134421]

  Mr. Mullin
  The data are not collated centrally. Such data would be difficult to obtain as any passenger developing thrombosis is usually likely to do so a number of days or weeks after the flight has taken place.

  Sewage
  Dr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment Transport and the Regions how much sewage was discharged into the sea in coastal areas in the last two years for which figures are available; and what percentage of this was treated. [134215]

  Mr. Mullin
  Information is not available in the format requested. Data collated by the water industry shows that sewage discharges to English and Welsh coastal waters in 1998 were approximately 6 million population equivalent. ("Population equivalent" is a way of combining household and industrial discharges to sewers into a single figure, where industrial discharges are given an equivalence in their polluting potential to domestic sewage). The percentage receiving "secondary-level" or better treatment 172W
  was 76 per cent. We have put in place the investment programmes to ensure that all discharges from sewage treatment works with a load of above 2,000 population equivalent will receive secondary treatment by 2005.

  China Visit
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what the purpose was of his recent visit to China; which staff accompanied him on the visit; what the cost was to the public purse of the visit; and what discussions he held with representatives of the Government of China on environmental or transport matters during his visit. [134631]

  Mr. Prescott
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) on 25 October 2000,Official Report, column 128W. I was accompanied by four officials from my Department, one Special Adviser and one official from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. My costs for the trip were approximately £6,550.

  South Downs National Park
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment Transport and the Regions what procedure he is following for the process of creating a National Park for the South Downs; and what the approximate timetable is. [134848]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Countryside Agency is responsible for designating National Parks and is in the process of considering a designation in the South Downs. The draft timetable provided by the Agency indicates that detailed local consultation on a possible boundary and administrative arrangements will continue until spring 2002, at which time the Agency proposes to deliver a designation order to the Secretary of State along with recommendations on administrative arrangements. The Secretary of State's role is to consider the designation order along with any representations received. In deciding whether to confirm the order, with or without modifications, the Secretary of State will consider any objections and, if necessary, call a public inquiry.

  Powershift
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what provision has been made for future funding of Powershift grants for energy efficiency in(a) Wales and (b) Scotland. [134629]

  Mr. Meacher
  As announced in the Transport 10-Year Plan, the Government are committed to continuing and strengthening cleaner vehicle initiatives such as the Powershift programme. My Department will announce future funding arrangements for the Powershift programme in England, Wales and Northern Ireland later this year. The budget for Powershift in Scotland has been devolved to the Scottish Executive and an announcement about Powershift funding in Scotland will be made by the Scottish Executive later this year.

  Rail Investment
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make it his policy to take an equity stake in Railtrack plc in return for any grant received by the company. [134418]
  173W
  Mr. Hill
  Our plans for rail investment were set out in the 10-Year Plan for Transport, and will be further illuminated by the shadow Strategic Rail Authority's forthcoming strategic plan.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if Railtrack has invited the Government to take an equity stake in the company as a way of generating additional funds for investment; and if he will make a statement. [135079]

  Mr. Hill
  In the context of developing our Ten-Year Plan for Transport, the Government had a number of discussions with Railtrack and others about ways of increasing investment in the railway. Our plans for rail investment were set out in the Ten-Year Plan for Transport and will be further illuminated by the shadow Strategic Rail Authority's forthcoming strategic plan.

  Local Government
  Valerie Davey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he intends to publish guidance on new council constitutions under part II of the Local Government Act 2000; and if he will make a statement. [135582]

  Ms Armstrong
  I have today commenced the duties on local authorities under Part II of the Local Government Act 2000 to consult on and draw up proposals for new constitutions.

  I have today published guidance on new council constitutions for English local authorities and associated statutory directions, together with guidelines on the consultation process. I have placed copies of these documents in the Library of the House.

  I have also today laid before the House copies of the following regulations:

  Local Authorities (Functions and Responsibilities) (England) Regulations 2000;

  Local Authorities (Arrangements for the Discharge of Functions) (England) Regulations 2000;

  Local Authorities (Referendums) (Petitions and Directions) (England) Regulations 2000; and

  Local Authorities (Proposals for Alternative Arrangements) (England) Regulations 2000.

  This is an exciting time of change for councils as they start to consult local communities on their new constitutions which will lead to greater efficiency, transparency and accountability.

  In many areas councils have already begun consulting local people and experimenting with a form of new arrangements. The guidance will help councils build on what has already been achieved.

  I expect the consultation to be meaningful and wide-ranging and to engage local people in discussions about the full range of options for change, including the chance to vote for a directly elected mayor if they want one. That is why today I am also publishing guidelines on consultation which offer practical help to councils.

  The framework is now in place for councils to begin the formal process of consulting local people and drawing up proposals for their new constitution. It is now for
  174W
  councils to ask their communities how they want to be governed. Where people want a directly elected mayor, they will be able to have one.

  Regional Government
  Mr. Michael Jabez Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what progress has been made in implementing the Performance and Innovation Unit's report "Reaching Out: The Role of Central Government at Regional and Local Level". [135645]

  Mr. Prescott
  "Reaching Out" was published in February 2000. The Government accepted all of its 81 conclusions.

  A key conclusion was that there should be new co-ordination arrangements. The Regional Co-ordination Unit (RCU) was established in April. In line with the report's recommendation, the RCU is an interdepartmental unit based in the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. It reports to me, with day-to-day direction from my noble and learned Friend the Minister of State for the Cabinet Office, Lord Falconer of Thoroton.

  The Unit has prepared an action plan identifying the key areas in which we need a new approach to developing and implementing Government policy with regional implications. The plan will be published on Friday 27 October and copies will be placed in the Libraries of the House. The plan will also be published on the website, together with a summary of progress on implementing the 81 detailed conclusions of the PIU report. The website reference is www.government-offices.gov.uk.

  Biological Diversity
  Laura Moffatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what progress was made at the last meeting of the conference of the parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity. [135685]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Conference of the Parties (COP) to the Convention on Biological Diversity met for the fifth time in Nairobi in May. Parliamentary business prevented my attendance, but the United Kingdom fielded a strong delegation who played a key part, including by helping to agree a challenging programme of action on a range of issues. This is vital if we are to succeed in our aim of safeguarding the world's biodiversity, and the Government will play its full part, together with a wide range of other stakeholders and our partners in other countries, in putting these necessarily ambitious plans into practice.

  Sixty-eight Parties to the Convention, including the UK, signed the Biosafety Protocol and a work plan was agreed for the first session of the Intergovernmental Committee for the Protocol, which meets in Montpellier in December. UK chaired negotiations on the operations of the Convention led to agreement on a comprehensive package of reform to improve its effectiveness, including preparation of a strategic plan for adoption at the next COP, to be held in April 2002 in the Netherlands. An administrative budget of $18.64 million was agreed for 2001–02: the UK's contribution for the biennium will

  175W
  be $0.911 million, an increase of 15.3 per cent. on 1999–2000, reflecting increased activity under the Convention.

  A four year cycle was adopted for Parties' national reports, to include an across the board assessment of implementation using a standard format which should facilitate global stocktaking. Optional biannual reports on priority issues were also invited: for COP6 these will cover forest biodiversity, alien species and benefit-sharing.

  Four ad hoc technical groups were set up, on marine and coastal biodiversity (2), drylands and forests. On inland water biodiversity, co-operation with the Ramsar Convention was encouraged. The COP decided to integrate fully the issue of coral bleaching into the marine and coastal biodiversity work programme which, along with the programme of work on forest biodiversity, envisages co-operation with the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Work programmes on dryland and agricultural biodiversity were also adopted, as was one on the role of indigenous and local knowledge, with due emphasis on the participation of the holders of such knowledge.

  An expert panel will be re-convened on access to genetic resources and benefit-sharing, and its findings will be considered by an open ended working group. This will draft guidelines for legislation and contracts for the exchange of genetic material and the means to protect traditional knowledge. The World Trade Organisation (WTO) and the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) were invited to explore further the relationship between the Agreement on Trade Related Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs) and the Convention.

  The 'ecosystem approach', which is intended to underpin the Convention's work, was elaborated and enshrined in 12 guiding principles for use by Parties. Further work was initiated to improve indicators of biodiversity and programmes for monitoring and assessment, with an increased emphasis on work at the national and regional levels. An international co-ordination mechanism for the Global Taxonomy Initiative was established, along with supporting pilot projects. COP also called for further work on the case for the April 2000 Gran Canaria Declaration, which urged development of a global strategy to conserve plant biodiversity.

  The COP agreed further development of the clearing house mechanism, designed to share information on activity under the Convention, in particular by building the capacity of developing countries to participate. A global initiative on education and public awareness was endorsed, and action encouraged at national level. Discussions on environmental impact assessment promoted the sharing of good practice; further work was foreseen on liability and redress; and a programme of work was established on incentive measures.

  Among the recommendations endorsed by the COP on the sustainable use of biodiversity were the identification of indicators and incentive measures for use by relevant sectors. The tourism industry was encouraged to work with all stakeholders to develop sustainable tourism, and countries were urged to apply interim principles for the control of alien species. Satisfactory decisions on
  176W
  financial resources and mechanisms reflect the improving relationship between the Parties and the Global Environment Facility.

  Full decisions from the meeting are available on the Convention's website at www.biodiv.org.

  Environmental Reviews
  Mr. Pearson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement about the forthcoming reviews of Environmental Campaign Ltd and the Environmental Action Fund. [135686]

  Mr. Meacher
  As part of the Government's programme of regular five-yearly financial, management and policy reviews of non-departmental public bodies and bodies similar to them, my Department has initiated a thorough review of Encams, the umbrella body through which we fund the Tidy Britain Group and Going for Green. The review will consider the case for continuing DETR funding of Encams' work programme in England, and whether Encams is the most appropriate body to carry out the functions funded by DETR. If appropriate it will then consider what changes may be necessary to the current strategic and financial relationship between the Department and Encams, to improve the value for money of any future funding. The review will be carried out by my Department's In House Policy Consultancy, which will consult widely with those organisations having an interest in Encams' activities.

  We have also set in hand a review of the Environmental Action Fund (EAF) which will consider the effectiveness with which the £4 million per year of the EAF is spent on promoting sustainable living in England, examine the aims, terms, conditions and administration of these financial resources and, if appropriate, make recommendations for change to make sure that these resources are targeted most effectively. The review will be carried out by Quadrangle Consulting, who will consult widely with organisations having an interest in the work of the Fund.

  I aim to ensure that any uncertainty caused by these reviews is kept to a minimum and I have asked both the In House Policy Consultancy and the EAF review team to report early in 2001.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Television Licence Fees
  Mr. Salter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will announce the television licence fees that will come into force next year; and if he will make a statement. [135776]

  Janet Anderson
  On 21 February this year, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced the Government's conclusions on the recommendations of the independent review panel on the future funding of the BBC. In addition to a range of measures designed to improve BBC efficiency and accountability, the Government introduced a new funding formula which provides for changes in the licence fee of RPI plus 1.5 per cent. for each year from 2000–01 to 2006–07.
  177W
  This formula will enable the BBC to provide a strong and distinctive schedule of benchmark quality programmes and remain at the forefront of the development of digital broadcasting services.

  Application of the RPI figure of 3.3 per cent. for the year to September 2000, plus 1.5 per cent., to the current unrounded licence fees produces new rounded totals of £109.00 for a colour licence and £36.50 for a black-and-white licence. The new licence fees will come into force on 1 April 2001. The necessary regulations to bring these fees into force will be laid before the House in due course.

  Historic Aircraft
  Mr. Hilary Benn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if the Heritage Lottery Fund's terms of reference cover the making of grants to support the restoration, including to flying condition, of historic aircraft; and if he will make a statement. [134336]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The Heritage Lottery Fund can support a wide variety of projects relating to aviation heritage, including the restoration of historic aircraft. The Trustees are willing to consider projects involving the long-term conservation, housing and interpretation of important aircraft. However, they do not expect to fund projects which restore aircraft to flying condition, given the risk of accident.

  Arts Sponsorship
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans he has to encourage increased commercial sponsorship of the arts. [134368]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  Latest figures show that annual business support for the arts now stands at over £141 million—an impressive figure. My Department and the Arts Council of England are working closely with Arts and Business to increase that figure to £167 million by March 2002. We are actively promoting Arts and Business's New Partners programme, which will encourage businesses to develop closer, deeper and longer-term relationships with arts organisations. We are also providing funding for a new Arts and Business Information Unit, which will commission research to prove that such relationships can be of mutual benefit.

  Regional Theatres
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the current deficit is of regional theatres in receipt of public funds; and if he will make a statement. [134597]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  The latest figure available from the Arts Council of England to the end of March 1999 is £4.4 million. I understand figures to March 2000 have been collected and will be available soon.

  Communications White Paper
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when he expects to publish the Communications White Paper. [134484]
  178W
  Janet Anderson
  The Communications White Paper will be published later this year. The White Paper will set out proposals for the reform of broadcasting and telecommunications legislation.

  Millennium Dome
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what his policy is on the designation of the Millennium Dome as a listed building. [134620]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The general rule when looking at buildings for listing, is that those less than 10 years old are not listed. There is no reason for us to adopt a different policy for the Millennium Dome.

  Television News Scheduling
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will make a statement on his policy in respect of the scheduling of news programmes on BBC1 and ITV. [134617]

  Janet Anderson
  It is not the role of Government to intervene in detailed issues of programme content and scheduling. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has, however, expressed his misgivings about the rescheduling of evening news services. Television is a vital source of information in our democratic society and it is important that the overall audience for television news and the quality of the service provided is not diminished.

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what discussions he has had with the BBC regarding the scheduling of the BBC One evening news; and if he will make a statement. [134605]

  Janet Anderson
  When my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State met the Chairman and Director-General of the BBC on 6 October to discuss a range of topics, he expressed misgivings about the BBC's decision to reschedule its evening news.

  Disability Discrimination
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what action he is taking to discourage disability discrimination in connection with practitioners and performers in the arts. [134217]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  I am committed to ensuring that all DCMS policies are fully inclusive. I have met Equity, the Actors' Union, on a number of occasions and have asked them to bring to my attention any cases of alleged discrimination. I also meet regularly the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment, my hon. Friend the Member for Barking who is responsible for Disabled People, to discuss issues of mutual concern. I recently hosted a DCMS conference to discuss with representatives in the arts and leisure industries the impact of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 between now and 2004. My Department will shortly publish its social inclusion strategy for the arts, which will include specific policies for addressing the needs of disabled people.

  British Museum
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what discussions he had with
  179W
  (a) the Head of English Heritage and (b) others about the stone used on the South Portico of the British Museum. [134608]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The stone used in the South Portico of the British Museum's Great Court is a matter for the trustees of the British Museum, for English Heritage, for the Heritage Lottery Fund and for the London Borough of Camden, and not for me. My right hon. Friend and I have been kept informed and my right hon. Friend was shown the site earlier this year with representatives from the British Museum, English Heritage and the London Borough of Camden.

  Regional Television News
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will make a statement on the provision of regional television news programmes. [134479]

  Janet Anderson
  The BBC is required, under its Charter and Agreement, to provide regional news and ITV licensees are required under the terms of their licences, to include in their regional programmes, minimum amounts of news of particular interest to viewers in their region. The BBC Governors give their assessment of the BBC's performance and compliance with its various obligations

  Average spending by visitors 1999

  Overseas residents

  UK residents

  Visits to the UK (Thousand)

  Spending (£ million)

  Average spend per visit (£)

  Visits within the UK (Thousand)

  Spending (£)

  Average spend per visit (£)

  United Kingdom

  25,394

  12,370

  487

  145.9

  15,925

  109

  England

  21,506

  11,030

  513

  123.3

  12,915

  105

  Scotland

  1,856

  817

  440

  10.5

  1,665

  158

  Wales

  1,010

  269

  267

  10.9

  1,135

  104

  Northern Ireland

  294

  109

  370

  1.2

  210

  175

  Source:

  The International Passenger Survey and The UK Tourist Key: Key Trends 1990–99

  The IPS interviews a random sample of passengers as they enter or leave the UK by the principal air, sea and tunnel routes. The UKTS is based on interviews with a random sample of UK adult residents for every survey. The results from the interviews are weighed, taking into account of a number of factors, to produce national estimates. The national estimates are then used to calculate average spend per tourist trip.

  BBC1 Evening News
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) if he intends to hold a six-month review of the performance of BBC1 evening news programmes in order to ensure compliance with the Royal Charter and Agreement; and if he will make a statement; [134622]

  (2) if he has received a commitment from the BBC Board of Governors that they will review the performance of the BBC1 evening news bulletins following recent changes to its schedule. [134624]
  180W
  in their annual report and the Independent Television Commission gives its assessment of the extent to which the ITV licensees have complied with their licence requirements in the Commission's annual report.

  Adult X Channel
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when he intends to issue a proscription order against the Adult X Channel, as recommended by the Independent Television Commission. [134616]

  Janet Anderson
  The proscription of the Adult X Channel is a matter on which we are currently carrying out necessary consultations.

  Spending Data (Visitors)
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how his Department calculates average spending by visitors to(a) England, (b) Scotland, (c) Wales and (d) Northern Ireland. [134478]

  Janet Anderson
  My Department calculates the average spending by visitors to England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland using statistical data provided by the UK tourism survey and the International Passenger Survey. Figures for the last full year for which information is available are as shown.

  Janet Anderson
  It is not for the Government to review the performance of the BBC 10 o'clock news and we have not asked for or received a commitment from the Board of Governors that they will do so. The Governors are, however, committed to reviewing annually all of the BBC's public services against the criteria published in this year's Annual Report and Accounts. This will include the whole of the new BBC1 schedule. The results of these reviews will be published in next year's Annual Reports and Accounts.

  Regional Orchestras
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the current deficit is of regional orchestras in receipt of public funds; and if he will make a statement. [134598]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  The projected figure for the nine orchestras for 1999–2000, quoted by ACE at the launch of its orchestral review last year, was £9,546,525. I understand actual figures to March 2000 have been collected and will be available soon.

  Royal Opera House
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what revisions have been made to the budget of the Royal Opera House in the last six months; and if he will make a statement. [134489]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The budget of the Royal Opera House is a matter for the Board and Management of the House. I understand, however, that there have been no revisions to the budget in the last six months.

  The Royal Opera House companies continue to attract a large and varied audience for their work. The House achieved over 90 per cent. capacity for performances of opera and ballet in the main auditorium in the first season after re-opening, and ticket prices have been reduced in many areas. A broad and innovative programme of education work has involved over 100,000 school children, as well as young people and adults from all backgrounds. I applaud the artists, board and management of the House for their commitment to producing excellent work for the widest possible audience.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Criminal Justice Review
  Mr. McWalter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the outcome of the consultation on the report of the Review of the Criminal Justice System in Northern Ireland. [135507]

  Mr. Mandelson
  The report of the Review of the Criminal Justice System was published in March, taking forward an important element of the Good Friday Agreement. The Review undertook a fundamental examination of the justice system in Northern Ireland, and the report cogently addresses a wide range of issues, backed up with extensive research. It emphasises the centrality of human rights, the need to safeguard and entrench the legal system's independence, and the importance of joined-up delivery and enhanced co-operation between the justice agencies and the wider community.

  I welcomed the report and initiated a consultation process on its recommendations. The period of consultation ended on 29 September, and I am grateful to all those who submitted their views.

  Overall, the consultation elicited a wide and positive range of responses. Inevitably with such a comprehensive report reservations on some of the proposals have been expressed, and we will wish to consider further the particular recommendations on which comments have been made. But there has been a wide measure of agreement on the overall shape of the proposed reforms, and a consensus among most respondents that the report represents the broad way forward.

  The Government fully endorse the general approach taken in the report. Informed by the consultation exercise, we have now put in hand the detailed work needed to prepare legislation and an implementation plan. As the Prime Minister has said, these will both be published next April.
  182W
  The report envisages that responsibility for the justice system should be transferred to the Assembly. The Government intend and are willing to devolve responsibility for policing and justice functions, as set out in the Good Friday Agreement. We need first to pave the way by completing the implementation of the policing reforms and giving practical effect to the decisions made on the Criminal Justice Review. Thereafter, devolution will follow as soon as practicable.

  I will make a further statement in due course as the detailed work progresses.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Election of Speaker
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the President of the Council if she will bring forward proposals to change the method of election of Speakers. [134662]

  Mrs. Beckett
  This is a matter which falls within the remit of either the Procedure Committee or the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons, or perhaps both. If such a Committee or Committees comes forward with proposals, they can then be put before the House.

PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  Appointments Commission
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the President of the Council if the minutes of meetings of the Appointments Commission are to be made public. [133716]

  Mrs. Beckett
  I understand that the Commission does not plan to make its minutes public since much of its work will consist of discussion of individuals. There is already a considerable amount of material about the Commission's working methods on its website www.houseoflordsappointmentscommission.gov.uk.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  General Fisheries Commission
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on his policy towards the establishment of a general fisheries commission for the Mediterranean; if Her Majesty's Government will be represented; if the Government of Gibraltar will be represented; what voting arrangements will apply; what costs are involved; what manner of external donations towards running costs are permitted; and what is the nature of European Commission involvement. [134207]

  Mr. Morley
  The Government support the establishment of appropriate Regional Fisheries Organisations (RFOs) and encourages their application of the principles in the United Nations Fisheries Agreement.

  Although the UK has no fishing interests in the Mediterranean it will be involved in the usual way in the preparation and co-ordination of an EU position in relation to the activities of the General Fisheries

  183W
  Commission for the Mediterranean (GFCM). As with other RFOs, it will then be for the Commission to negotiate on behalf of the EU.

  Gibraltar is not represented in the GFCM as it does not have a domestic fleet which would be affected by the work of the Commission which concerns stocks in international waters in the Mediterranean.

  Each member of the GFCM has one vote. The EU Commission is entitled to use the number of votes equal to the number of member states entitled to vote. The GFCM is currently funded by the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the UN. Agreement has been reached on the need to establish an autonomous budget for the Commission.

  Discussions continues on how contributions should be determined. Once the autonomous budget has been ratified the GFCM will be able to accept voluntary contributions offered either for the general run of its activities or for specific projects.

  Pig Industry
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on average incomes in the pig industry in each of the past three years. [134788]

  Ms Quin
  The table shows the average Net Farm Income of full-time specialist pig farm businesses in England for each of the past three years. Farm income estimates for 1999-2000 will be available early in 2001.

  Average income of full time specialist pig farms in England

  Average £/farm

  Year

  Net Farm Income

  1996–97

  55,123

  1997–98

  13,728

  1998–99

  -32,979

  Source:

  Farm Business Survey

  A rise in the price of pig meat since June 2000 will improve the situation of the pig sector in 2000–01.

  Animal Husbandry
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what progress his Department has made on animal husbandry issues following the report of the Working Party into the role of cattle husbandry in the development of a sustainable policy to control M bovine infection in cattle; [133588]

  (2) if he will publish the guidelines that the Bourne Expert Group is operating with regard to animal husbandry. [133589]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 23 October 2000]The Husbandry Panel report was published on 16 May this year. The Government welcomed the report and are considering its recommendations. We have sought the views of both the Independent Scientific Group on Cattle TB chaired by John Bourne and the TB Forum. The ISG' s terms of reference provide for advising the Government, as required, on any aspect of its strategy to control TB in cattle. The TB Forum established a sub-group of its members to look at husbandry and bio-security issues 184W
  with regard to cattle TB. This sub-group reported to the Forum's October meeting. The Government expect to publish its response to the Husbandry Panel report within the next few weeks.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Employment Zones
  Ms Rosie Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the employment zone initiative. [132600]

  Ms Jowell
  The 15 Employment Zones have made a very good start. We have paid contractors for 1,061 long-term unemployed people having started in jobs up to the end of August. Latest information from our contractors suggests that over 2,000 long-term unemployed people have now been placed into work.

  Labour Market Access
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment he has made of the measures required to tackle labour market access for the most disadvantaged groups; and what policies are in place to address this situation. [132601]

  Ms Hodge
  Our Welfare to Work and Lifelong Learning strategies are about helping people, including those at greatest disadvantage, get and keep jobs. In designing and evaluating these policies, we take careful account of their impact on different groups in society. Our New Deals already target young people, the long-term unemployed, older workers, lone parents and disabled people. Extra help is available for those with additional disadvantages. In addition, Employment Zones and Action Teams for Jobs target those in disadvantaged communities.

  Islington Arts and Media School
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how much fresh start finance has been provided to Islington Arts and Media school. [132603]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  To date, approximately £3.15 million has been spent or committed on building work at the school since its Fresh Start in September 1999. The Department is currently considering a bid for the next phase of this improvement work. The school will also benefit from the extra revenue funding available to all Fresh Start schools, to support the progress the school is now making in raising standards.

  Dance and Drama Scholarships
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what the total number is of dance and drama scholarships to be made available this year. [132604]

  Mr. Wicks
  The number of Dance and Drama Awards available from September 2000 is 1,624. Of these 951 students have awards that are funded through the further education route. The awards for the remaining 673 students are funded through the higher education route.
  185W
  These awards did not exist under the previous administration. We have successfully replaced the lottery which existed in the past, putting talent before postcodes.

  Instead of paying fees of up to £8,000, award-winners only pay at most £1,050, in line with university students. Students with awards are also eligible for means tested help with their living and learning costs.

  Direct Grants
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what direct grants are available from central Government for consolidating schools with a number of sites by rebuilding them on a single site; what the procedures are for applying for such funding; and what the time scale is for each type of grant. [132605]

  Jacqui Smith
  A number of funding routes will be available from 2001x2013;02, which could be used for this purpose. Two routes may be best suited. For Voluntary Aided schools, proposals for such grant could have formed part of their capital funding applications to the Department, made via local authorities, by 30 September. Local authorities may also want to put in proposals for such projects, probably funded by borrowing approvals, under the Targeted Capital Fund, by 15 January. Overall capital expenditure plans for 2001–02 are £2.1 billion, compared with the £683 million a year spent under the previous administration in 1996–97.

  Kingsbridge Community College is to receive £2.2 million for 2001–02, by means of an advance allocation of likely formula funding for condition for 2001–02.

  Direct Grants (Schools)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how much money will be paid in direct grants to schools over the next three years. [132606]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  It is estimated that schools will be paid almost £1.7 billion in direct grants over the next three years. £545 million in 2001–02, with year-on-year increases of 2.75 per cent. in each of the following two years. Since 1997, funding per pupil has increased by over £300 per pupil (to some £3,100 per pupil this year). Under the last Government, funding per pupil fell by £60 in real terms between 1994–95 and 1997–98. There will be further increases in funding following the year 2000 spending review: a further £370 per pupil over the three-year period, taking the total increase to nearly £700 between 1997–98 and 2003–04.

  Work-life Balance
  Ms Julie Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what help is being offered to employers to develop policies which encourage a balance between work and life. [132608]

  Ms Hodge
  The work-life balance campaign aims to increase employers' awareness and take-up of work-life balance policies.
  186W
  With an additional boost of nearly £1 million, we have increased the Challenge Fund to £3.2 million over three years. This is providing free advice to employers to bring benefits to their business and allow their employees to enjoy a better work-life balance.

  We are working in partnership with Employers for Work-Life Balance (an independent group of 22 employers) to promote best practice. We are publishing a series of good practice guides giving employers practical advice.

  Physical Education
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will take steps to ensure that all schools comply with the minimum requirement of two hours physical education each week for all pupils. [132610]

  Jacqui Smith
  We have set a clear aspiration that all schools should provide two hours of physical activity a week. We are promoting this through a number of developments supported by a massive investment in sport in schools. The Prime Minister announced in September that £750 million would be invested in schools sport facilities as part of a £1 billion investment. We are working to inspire schools and partners in the sports sector to deliver the two hours aspiration through the Sports Strategy. Recent research confirms that the most popular out-of-school hours learning activity was participating in sport. This is particularly encouraging. Additionally, the Teacher Training Agency has allocated an indicative target of 399 primary PE Initial Teacher Training places to providers for the academic year 2000–01. This represents 3 per cent. of the overall primary target of 13,100 and shows a commitment to the recruitment of specialist PE teachers in primary schools.

  Sure Start
  Mr. Olner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the new resources announced for the sure start programme in the comprehensive spending review. [132612]

  Yvette Cooper
  I have been asked to reply.
  As announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 18 July, in the Spending Review Command Paper 4807, Sure Start has new resources of £449 million for 2002–03 and £499 million for 2003–04. These, added to the provision before the spending review of £448 million for the years 1999–2000 to 2001–02, bring the total resources for Sure Start to £1,396 million over the five-year period. As a result, the 250 programmes will be increased to around 500 programmes, and these will reach one third of children in poverty by 2003–04.

  New Deal
  Mrs. Betty Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment his Department has made of the net cost of the New Deal for Young People. [132613]

  Ms Jowell
  We have commissioned independent research on the net impact of the New Deal for Young People. The National Institute of Economic and Social Research (NIESR) published a first report in December 1999.
  187W
  NIESR concluded that in its first year the New Deal had a positive impact on the levels of output and employment, and that the New Deal was close to self-financing because the extra activity it generated led to higher Government revenue.

  A second summary report on the macroeconomic evaluation of New Deal, covering the first two years of the programme, will be published in the next few months.

  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what he estimates to be the percentage deadweight in the new deals for employment. [132623]

  Ms Jowell
  The information requested is not yet available, but will be assessed as part of the evaluation of each of the New Deals. Information on deadweight in the New Deal for Young People will be included in the second summary report on the macroeconomic evaluation of the New Deal for Young People, due to be published this year.

  Post-16 Education
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what opportunities recent changes will give for greater collaboration between schools and further education colleges over post-16 education. [132614]

  Mr. Wicks
  The creation of a Learning and Skills Council will support collaboration, including through the development of a coherent funding formula across schools and FE. The system we inherited had achieved some success, but it was complex, fragmented and inadequate for the challenge of the 21st Century.

  Pupil Spending
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment by how much spending per pupil will increase in real terms between 2000–01 and 2003–04. [132616]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  Total funding per pupil in England has increased by over £300 per pupil in real terms since 1997. The Year 2000 Spending Review means a real terms increase in planned spending of £370 over the three years bringing the total to almost £700 per pupil between 1997–98 and 2003–04. Spending per pupil fell by £60 in real terms under the last three years of the previous administration.

  Mr. Hesford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the level of spending per school pupil since May 1997. [134221]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  Under this Government, funding per pupil has already increased by over £300 (to some £3,100 per pupil this year). In this year alone it has risen by £180. Under the last Government, funding per pupil fell by £60 in real terms between 1994–95 and 1997–98. There will be further increases in funding following the year 2000 spending review: a further £370 per pupil over the three-year period, taking the total increase to nearly £700 between 1997–98 and 2003–04.

  Departmental Administration Costs
  Mr. Garnier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the cost of administration in his Department. [132617]

  Mr. Wills
  The planned net running cost of the Department in 2000–01 is £252 million. A further £3.25 million is available this year from the Windfall Tax for DfEE administration. These and comparable figures for past years are set out in Annexes Ei and Eii of the Departmental Report (Cm 4602). They illustrate our success in reducing the costs of administration while delivering the Government's radical programme of reform for education and employment. The planned DfEE running cost for 2000–01 (excluding Windfall Tax funding) is £15 million or 6 per cent. less than in 1996–97. This represents a reduction in real terms of 15 per cent.

  Further Education Funding
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on funding for pay in sixth-form and further education colleges. [132618]

  Mr. Wicks
  To help colleges meet the challenge to raise standards of learning, we have made available additional sums to improve the rewards for high calibre staff and to secure their recruitment and retention. My right hon. Friend announced on 18 July a £50 million increase in funding for further education lecturers' pay in 2001–02.

  The Government are strongly committed to the continuation of the current independent arrangements for settling pay and conditions in the further education sector. These issues will remain a matter between employers and staff. Representatives of employers, unions and officials from this Department have started the process of designing appropriate mechanisms for further education.

  Class Sizes
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on class sizes in(a) primary and (b) secondary schools since May 1997. [132619]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The size of primary classes has gone down in each of the past two years after rising steadily throughout the previous 10 years. In January 1997, the size of the average primary class was 27.5. By January 2000 it had fallen to 27.1. The Government are well on target to deliver their pledge to limit the size of infant classes to 30 pupils, and 300,000 children have already benefited. £620 million is available to support the pledge, and allocations so far to York LEA amount to some £1.4 million. This has helped to reduce the size of the average Key Stage 1 class in the Vale of York to 24.2—the figure in January 1997 was 24.5. The size of the average Key Stage 2 class in the constituency has fallen to 27.1, from 27.2 in January 1997.

  The size of the average secondary class in January 1997 was 21.7. In January 2000 it was 22.0, when the pupil-teacher ratio in secondary classes was 17.1. Secondary class sizes have been rising steadily since 1988, when the average figure was 19.9. However, a typical secondary school will in 2001–02 be receiving

  189W
  £60,000 in direct grant to spend as they choose. If this was spent on teachers, the pupil-teacher ratio could be reduced by 0.6.

  Education SSAs
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what progress has been made in the review of education standard spending assessments; and if he will make a statement. [132620]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  On 19 September, the Government published "Modernising local government finance—a green paper" which sets out our ideas for a fairer distribution of education funding between local authorities. It makes clear that there is a continuing and important role for LEAs in deciding—with their schools—how funding is distributed at local level. We are keen to hear views on the options set out in the Green Paper—there will be three months for responses which we will consider carefully before making any decisions.

  Secondary School Achievements
  Ms Keeble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what steps are being taken to improve the achievement of children in secondary schools. [132621]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  In recent speeches, my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and Secretary of State have set out the Government's vision for transforming secondary education. The initiatives include: introducing a pilot scheme to focus on boosting pupil achievement at Key Stage 3; expanding the geographical range and scope of the 'Excellence in Cities' programme; expanding the number of specialist schools; introducing City Academies to areas of urban disadvantage; and investing in professional development for our teachers.

  Child Care Workers
  Mr. Peter Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment he has made of the response to the Government's campaign to recruit child care workers. [132622]

  Ms Hodge
  The response to the campaign has been very positive and encouraging. By 15 October, the high-profile media and press advertising had generated some 41,728 calls to the national recruitment helpline and 41,321 booklets have been sent out to callers.

  Education Services (Leeds)
  Mr. Burgon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment under what circumstances the services provided by the proposed Joint Venture Company will return to the sole control of Leeds local education authority. [132624]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  Leeds City Council, the Local Education Authority, will be responsible for ensuring that services to schools, pupils and parents in Leeds are delivered on its behalf to an agreed specification under the contractual arrangement with the proposed joint venture company. The joint venture company will take day-to-day responsibility for delivery, and will have the power to take the necessary operational decisions. The contract will be for a fixed period, not yet determined. Towards the end 190W
  of the contract, the Secretary of State and Leeds City Council will need to come to a view on arrangements for the future delivery of relevant services.

  Mature Students
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what the drop-out rate for mature students was in higher education for the last 12 months for which figures are available. [132593]

  Mr. Wicks
  The latest "Performance Indicators in Higher Education" published by the Higher Education Funding Council for England give an overall non-completion rate for students starting full-time first degree courses in the UK in 1997–98 of 17 per cent. a figure which has stayed roughly constant since 1991–92. It is not possible to disaggregate the relevant data by age. We announced in January a substantial package of additional financial support for mature students.

  Local Education Authorities
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the future role of local education authorities. [132611]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  Local education authorities have four essential functions related to schools: special educational needs, access and school transport, school improvement and strategic management.

  We are working with LEAs and other partners to develop new and better ways of securing the delivery of education services.

  Skills Training
  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what actions he is taking to promote skills training related to automotive design and manufacturing. [132591]

  Mr. Wicks
  The promotion of skills training is at the heart of our decision to set up the Learning and Skills Council and to strengthen the National Training Organisations.

  The motor industry is critical to Britain's competitiveness—and of course vital to the economy of the West Midlands—where the Government have made £129 million available for economic regeneration and job creation.

  The industry has over 13,000 Modern Apprentices, is a priority sector for the Ufl, and will be central to the skills and training agenda of the local LSC in Birmingham.

  Numeracy and Literacy
  Ms Christine Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what steps he is taking to improve basic numeracy and literacy skills through the New Deal. [132602]

  Ms Jowell
  We have introduced, for the first time ever, comprehensive arrangements to identify, assess and tackle basic numeracy and literacy skills problems. By extending these arrangements to meet the challenge of basic employability, no one should leave the New Deal without the opportunity to improve reading and writing ability.

  Top Universities (Access)
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what action he is taking to increase access to the top universities. [132607]

  Mr. Wicks
  In September, we launched a three-year, £150 million programme, the Excellence Challenge to further widen participation in higher education. All higher education institutions in England, 800 secondary schools and 600 FE Colleges in Excellence in Cities areas will be funded. They will work with young people from the age of 13 and provide them with the information, resources and encouragement which they need to apply for and enter higher education, including the most demanding institutions.

  School Transport
  Mr. Leigh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on travel costs for schools in rural areas. [132615]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  We recognise the higher cost of school transport in rural areas through the sparsity allowance in local education authorities' standard spending assessments.

  E-universities
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on recent developments in the establishment of an e-university in the United Kingdom. [134224]

  Mr. Wicks
  The Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) has responsibility for the development of the e-universities project, which aims to establish a globally competitive provider of internet-based higher education. The Secretary of State announced on 14 September that the Government would make £14 million available to HEFCE to support the project in 2001–02. On 10 October, HEFCE issued a consultation paper on the business model for the e-universities; and the private sector will be invited to express interest in becoming potential partners in the project.

  Qualifications and Curriculum Authority
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what recent consultations he has held with the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority. [134214]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The Secretary of State and his Ministers regularly seek advice from the QCA on a wide range of matters that fall within the remit of the Authority. Among the issues on which the Secretary of State has received advice from the QCA are the introduction of vocational GCSEs, the development of advanced extension awards, raising standards at Key Stage 3 and access to marked examination scripts.

  University Degrees
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many students obtained a first degree at(a) universities established before 1992, (b) universities established under the Further and Higher
  192W
  Education Act 1992, (c) colleges of higher education, (d) further education colleges and (e) otherwise, in the last three years. [134216]

  Mr. Wicks
  The latest available data are shown in the following table. Figures for 1999–2000 will be available in February 2001.

  UK domiciled students obtaining first degrees in English

  institutions

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  Pre 1992 Universities

  75,181

  73,839

  76,818

  Universities established under the 1992 FHE Act

  81,656

  82,719

  83,246

  Colleges of HE

  24,742

  24,335

  24,430

  FE colleges1

  1,048

  4,454

  4,234

  Other2

  9,217

  8,610

  8,574

  Total

  191,844

  193,957

  197,302

  1Because of under-reporting by institutions, the figures for 1996–97 are not comparable with later years.

  2Covers the Open University; excludes the University of Buckingham, and other private and independent HE institutions.

  Higher Education (Accountability)
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what action he is taking in conjunction with Higher Education Funding Council for England to simplify and reduce the cost to higher education institutions of compliance with quality and accountability requirements. [134218]

  Mr. Wicks
  This is a matter for the Higher Education Funding Councils, together with institutions. HEFCE is consulting on the report published in August on Better Accountability and will publish the results of their consultation. The Quality Assurance Agency has devised new procedures to remove some of the burden from the institutions of subject review and institutional audit, especially where standards are already high.

  Specialist Schools
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what detailed restrictions on applications by schools for specialist status have been announced since July; how many schools had(a) made formal applications and (b) entered into preliminary discussions with the Department about making a bid; how many bids have been aborted or delayed in consequence; what impact there has been on the distribution of specialties across the country; what costs have been incurred by bidding schools; what private funds have been raised; and if he will make a statement. [134219]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The specialist schools programme has grown from 181 schools in May 1997 to a network of 535 schools and we have plans for 1,000 specialist schools by 2004. Unlike under the previous Administration, there is now a substantial budget for specialist schools and a clear programme of expansion. Currently, around 19 per cent. of secondary pupils attend specialist schools, compared with 6 per cent. in May 1997. That percentage will increase to over 30 per cent. by 2004. There is no permanent upper limit on the number of specialist schools that there can be in any area, nor on the number of pupils. However, in order to ensure that all parts of the country have an opportunity to benefit from the expanded programme, my Department wrote in July to LEAs indicating to them that where
  193W
  specialist schools were already educating over 30 per cent. of their pupils, we would not want to receive further applications until we had ensured a fairer spread in other parts of the country. This does not mean that in the future, subject to resources being available, no further bids will be considered.

  The LEAs where currently over 30 per cent. of pupils attend specialist schools are: Bath and North East Somerset, Milton Keynes, Northamptonshire, North Somerset, Northumberland, Rutland, West Berkshire and Wigan. I have indicated to those LEAs also that, in exceptional circumstances, where applications have already been prepared, we would be willing to consider them. While we have received no formal applications from schools in these areas in the current Technology and Language College competitions, we have had discussions with six schools which were planning applications and are discussing with each whether we could support their application coming forward. We have so far agreed that two of these should submit an application. The costs incurred by bidding schools are not known but, as these cases demonstrate, our arrangements provide for schools to draw our attention to exceptional circumstances such as a nearly completed application, including where the sponsorship has been raised.

  Higher Education Applications
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on applications to higher education institutions since July, and the number of places available. [134220]

  Mr. Wicks
  The number of applicants through the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service to full-time and sandwich first degree, and Higher National Diploma courses at UK institutions since July, is 35,177. The total number of acceptances as at 11 October is 336,930, an increase of 1.9 per cent. on last year. The Universities and Colleges Admissions Service statistics do not include students wishing to enrol on part-time courses. Information on all entrants to higher education courses will be collected by the Higher Education Statistics Agency.

  Foundation Degrees
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on recent developments in the establishment of foundation degrees. [134222]

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

  HEFCE received proposals from 56 consortia of HEIs, FECs and employers by the deadline earlier this month. This represents well over half of institutions with degree awarding powers drawn from across the higher education sector. We welcome this enthusiastic response and clear commitment to foundation degrees. The successful consortia will be announced in late November.

  Learning and Skills Councils
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will report progress on the establishment of local learning and skills councils and on the appointment of(a) their chairmen and (b) their members. [134223]

  Mr. Wicks
  We are making good progress in establishing the 47 local arms of the Learning and Skills Council. All 47 local Chairs and local Executive Directors have been appointed and we aim to announce local Council members by the end of November.

  International Students
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the proportion of the international student market recently secured by higher education institutions in the United Kingdom; and what plans he has to increase this proportion. [134225]

  Mr. Wicks
  Some 18 per cent. of English-speaking international students (from outside the European Union) study in the United Kingdom, the remaining 82 per cent. studying almost exclusively in either the United States or Australia. Last year, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced the target of increasing this market share to 25 per cent. by 2005. Recent data from the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service show that acceptances by international students for undergraduate courses beginning in the 2000–01 academic year have increased by 8.2 per cent., compared to a rise of 1.9 per cent. for all UK undergraduates.

  As part of my right hon. Friend's initiative to attract more international students to the UK, we have developed the Education UK Brand, a three-year world-wide campaign to promote the UK to potential students. We have made it easier for international students to come to the UK by making the visa service more user-friendly, normally allowing them from the outset leave to remain for the full duration of their course, and making it easier for them to work while studying. The number of places on the Chevening scholarship scheme has also been increased.

  Court Judgments
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the impact on the budgets of local education authorities of recent court judgments concerning special educational needs, with special reference to the four cases of Phelps, Jarvis, Anderton and a 16-year-old referred to as G. [134226]

  Jacqui Smith
  The impact on budgets of individual local education authorities of recent court judgments will depend on the number of further cases successfully brought before the courts. It is not possible to predict the likely number of such cases but it should be noted that in the Phelps case, so far the only one of the cases in which the facts have been considered and in which the court decided there had been negligence, the judgment recognised that
  the professionalism, dedication and standards of those engaged in the provision of educational services are such that cases of negligence will be exceptional.

  Business Links
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to(a) support and (b) encourage links between higher education and business. [134290]

  Mr. Wicks
  The Government plan to support and encourage higher education-business links through the establishment of a continuing stream of funding for institutions' work with business and the community. The Higher Education Funding Council for England has already allocated £82.16 million (including a contribution from DTI) for projects running until 2004 under the Higher Education Reach-Out to Business and the Community Fund. This fund will be incorporated into a new Higher Education Innovation Fund from the next financial year, which will also include an additional £80 million over three years from the Office for Science and Technology.

  We also support activities to enable and encourage HE-business interaction to enhance the work-readiness of graduates. Higher education institutions are involving employers in the development of the new foundation degrees that are designed to meet the skills gap at the higher technician and associate professional level. We are also working with higher education institutions and National Training Organisations to develop Graduate Apprenticeships as a means of equipping graduates with an honours degree or higher-level qualification for work in specific employment sectors.

  Performance Tables
  Mr. Hilary Benn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment further to his answer of 20 July 2000,Official Report, columns 305–06W, on performance tables, whether pupils recently arrived from overseas will be counted as being on school rolls in respect of Key Stage 3 test results. [134383]

  Jacqui Smith
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave on 28 July 2000,Official Report, column 1039W.

  Milk (Schools)
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what guidance he gives to headteachers and governors about the provision of subsidised milk in schools and the entitlement of pupils to receive free school milk. [134397]

  Jacqui Smith
  Schools and local education authorities are not obliged to provide milk for their pupils, but where they do so it must by law be supplied free of charge to those children whose parents are in receipt of either Income Support or income-based Jobseekee s Allowance. The Government issued guidance in September 1996. The Government encourage schools that do not provide drinking milk to consider doing so and to make use of either the EU School Milk Subsidy Scheme or the Welfare Food Scheme. These schemes are administered by the Intervention Board, on behalf of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and the Department of Health respectively, and it is for them to issue guidance as they consider necessary.

PRIME MINISTER

  Ministerial Meetings
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Prime Minister what matters, other than the new agenda for reform of the police, were discussed at his meeting with the Home Secretary on 26 June; if he will place a copy of the minutes in the Library; and if he will make a statement. [134860]

  The Prime Minister
  It has been established practice under successive administrations not to disclose details of confidential discussions between Ministers.

TREASURY

  Central Heating Fuel
  Mrs. Shephard
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer by how much the cost of central heating fuel has risen due to(a) the increase in the price of crude oil and (b) increases in taxation, since 1 April 1998. [134292]

  Mr. Timms
  The information requested is contained in the Department of Trade and Industry's monthly statistical bulletin, "Energy Trends, March 1999". A copy of which is available in the House of Commons Library.

  The rise in taxation was preceded in September 1997 by the Government's reduction in the rate of VAT on fuel and power used domestically, cutting the rate of VAT from 8 per cent. to 5 per cent., the lowest level allowed under European Community law.

  Working Families Tax Credit
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many families he estimates are currently eligible for the Working Families Tax Credit; and how many of those are in receipt of it. [134427]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The number of families in receipt of the Working Families Tax Credit at the end of August 2000 is provisionally estimated at 1,123,000. This compares with 817,000 families who were in receipt of Family Credit in August 1999. The number of individuals and families in receipt of the Disabled Persons Tax Credit is provisionally estimated at 25,400. This compares with 18,469 recipients under Disability Working Allowance in August 1999.

  Euro
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he last discussed Government policy on the euro with the Federation of Small Businesses. [134652]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Chancellor meets many business representatives to discuss a wide range of issues.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what constitutional issues he considered in deciding that there was no constitutional bar to future British entry to the euro. [134651]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Chancellor's October 1997 statement set out the Government's position on the constitutional issue.
  197W
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer for what period of time his five economic tests would have to have been met for him to decide that convergence had been achieved. [135025]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The determining factor underpinning any Government decision is whether the economic case for the UK joining is clear and unambiguous. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has said we will make another assessment of the five economic tests early in the next Parliament.

  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the impact of the result of the Danish referendum on the single European currency. [134939]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Danish membership of EMU is a matter for the Danish people.

  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he last met(a) the Foreign Secretary and (b) the Northern Ireland Secretary to discuss the implications of replacing the pound with the single European currency. [135024]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer meets his Cabinet colleagues on a regular basis and discusses a wide range of issues.

  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the progress towards each of his five economic tests for replacing the pound with the single European currency being met. [134940]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer has said we will make another assessment of the five economic tests early in the next Parliament.

  New Taxes
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many new taxes he has introduced since May 1997. [134649]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Information on taxation is in the Financial Statement and Budget Reports, which can be found in the House of Commons Library.

  Disabled Persons Learning Credit
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the take-up of the disabled persons learning credit. [134722]

  Dawn Primarolo
  We are not aware of the existence of the disabled persons learning credit.

  Gold Reserves
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what the current value in pounds sterling is of those euros purchased with the proceeds of United Kingdom gold reserves sold and invested in the euro; [134915]

  (2) what the value was in pounds sterling of United Kingdom gold reserves sold and invested in the euro; [134914]

  (3) what his long-term plans are regarding the maintenance of Britain's gold reserves. [134971]
  198W
  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Treasury is planning to reduce its gold holdings to around 300 tonnes over the medium term, as announced on 7 May 1999.

  Details of the proceeds from each of the eight gold auctions held to date can be found on the Bank of England's website (www.bankofengland.co.uk/press.htm). The proceeds have been reinvested in interest-bearing foreign currency assets. The currency split being broadly the same as that of the net reserves. Details of this can be found in the "Exchange Equalisation Account: Accounts 1997–98", published 26 January 2000.

  Pre-Budget Report
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many staff in his Department worked on the 1999 Pre-Budget report. [134725]

  Dawn Primarolo
  A number of staff in the Treasury worked on the 1999 Pre-Budget Report.

  Financial Services
  Barbara Follett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent developments there have been in the regulation of financial services. [135644]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, which received Royal Assent on 14 June, provides a framework for the completion of the modernisation of financial services regulation announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in May 1997.

  Parliament will be asked to approve secondary legislation under the Act. The Treasury has today issued two consultation documents: on the scope of FSA regulation; and on the framework for the promotion of financial services. In the document on scope there are draft Orders on regulated activities; when regulated activities are and are not being carried on by way of business; persons who will be exempt from the requirement for FSA authorisation; the exemption of appointed representatives of an authorised person; and activities which will not be exempt regulated activities under Part XX of the Act. In the document on the framework for promotion of financial services there are draft Orders on financial promotion and on the promotion of collective investment scheme.

  The Government have previously announced a number of areas which it proposes should be subject to FSA regulation, in order to strike a better balance between the interests of providers and consumers of financial services. The principal change is the regulation of mortgage lending, on which the Treasury has today issued a further consultation document. Other areas which the Government propose be brought into the scope of FSA regulation are pre-paid funeral plans, deposit taking by credit unions and Lloyd's insurance.

  Copies of all three consultation documents have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses. Further copies are available from the Treasury, and can also be accessed via the Treasury's website (www.hm-treasury.gov.uk).

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Egypt
  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make representations to the Egyptian Government to ensure Shaiboob William Arsal's appeal against his conviction for murder is held in an open and transparent manner. [133847]

  Mr. Hain
  We are aware of the circumstances of Shaiboob William Arsal's trial. The case is now sub judice under Egyptian law following his appeal to the Court of Cassation on 12 June. We would not want to make any comment that might prejudice his appeal. However, we shall continue to follow the course of his case closely as we shall all reports of human rights concern.

  Arms Exports
  Laura Moffatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps the Government have taken to consolidate the UK's national criteria against which the Government assess licence applications to export arms and dual-use equipment with those of the EU Code of Conduct on Arms Exports; and if he will make a statement. [135683]

  Mr. Hain
  Licences to export arms and other goods controlled for strategic reasons are issued by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, acting through the Export Control Organisation of the DTI. All relevant individual licence applications are circulated by DTI to other Government Departments with an interest, as determined by those Departments in line with their own policy responsibilities. These include the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Ministry of Defence and the Department for International Development.

  In the Foreign Secretary's reply to my hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Mr. Timms) on 28 July 1997, Official Report, column 27, he set out the criteria which would be used in considering advance approvals for promotion prior to formal application for an export licence, applications for licences to export miliary equipment, and dual-use goods where there are grounds for believing that the end-user will be the armed forces or internal security forces of the recipient country. As my right hon. Friend said then, the Government are committed to the maintenance of a strong defence industry as part of our industrial base as well as of our defence effort, and recognise that defence exports can also contribute to international stability by strengthening collective defence relationships; but believe that arms transfers must be managed responsibly. We have since taken a range of measures designed to ensure the highest standards of responsibility in our export control policies. These include the adoption during the UK's Presidency of the EU of a Code of Conduct on Arms Exports; the publication of Annual Reports on Strategic Export Controls which are among the most transparent of those of any arms exporting country; the ban on the export of equipment used for torture; the ratification of the Ottawa Convention on anti-personnel landmines and the passage of the Land Mines Act; and our many efforts to combat illicit trafficking in and destabilising accumulations of small arms.
  200W
  Since the Council of the European Union adopted the EU Code of Conduct on Arms Exports on 8 June 1998, all relevant licence applications have been assessed against the UK's national criteria and those in the Code of Conduct, which represent minimum standards that all member states have agreed to apply. The criteria in the EU Code of Conduct are compatible with those which I announced in July 1997. At the same time there is a large degree of overlap between the two. It is clearly in the interests of Government Departments involved in assessing licence applications, British exporters and other interested parties that the criteria which are used should be set out as clearly and unambiguously as possible.

  With immediate effect, therefore, the following consolidated criteria will be used in considering all individual applications for licences to export goods on the Military List, which forms Part III of Schedule 1 to the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1994; advance approvals for promotion prior to formal application for an export licence; and licence applications for the export of dual-use goods as specified in Annexe 1 of Council Decision 94/942/CFSP when there are grounds for believing that the end-user of such goods will be the armed forces or internal security forces or similar entities in the recipient country, or that the goods will be used to produce arms or other goods on the Military List for such end-users. The criteria are based on those in the EU Code of Conduct, incorporating elements from the UK's national criteria where appropriate. As before, they will not be applied mechanistically but on a case-by-case basis, using judgment and commonsense. Neither the fact of this consolidation, nor any minor additions or amendments to the wording of the two sets of criteria used before, should be taken to imply any change in policy or in its application.

  An export licence will not be issued if the arguments for doing so are outweighed by the need to comply with the UK's international obligations and commitments, by concern that the goods might be used for internal repression or international aggression, by the risks to regional stability or by other considerations as described in these criteria.

  Criterion One

  Respect for the UK's international commitments, in particular sanctions decreed by the UN Security Council and those decreed by the European Community, agreements on non-proliferation and other subjects, as well as other international obligations.

  The Government will not issue an export licence if approval would be inconsistent with, inter alia:

  (a) the UK's international obligations and its commitments to enforce UN, OSCE and EU arms embargoes, as well as national embargoes observed by the UK and other commitments regarding the application of strategic export controls;

  (b) the UK's international obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention and the Chemical Weapons Convention;

  (c) the UK's commitments in the frameworks of the Australia Group, the Missile Technology Control Regime, the Nuclear Suppliers Group and the Wassenaar Arrangement;

  (d) the Guidelines for Conventional Arms Transfers agreed by the Permanent Five members of the UN Security Council, the OSCE Principles Governing Conventional Arms Transfers and the EU Code of Conduct on Arms Exports;

  (e) the UK's obligations under the Ottawa Convention and the 1998 Land Mines Act;

  (f) the UN Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons.

  201W
  Criterion Two

  The respect of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the country of final destination.

  Having assessed the recipient country's attitude towards relevant principles established by international human rights instruments, the Government will:

  (a) not issue an export licence if there is a clear risk that the proposed export might be used for internal repression;

  (b) exercise special caution and vigilance in issuing licences, on a case-by-case basis and taking account of the nature of the equipment, to countries where serious violations of human rights have been established by the competent bodies of the UN, the Council of Europe or by the EU.

  For these purposes, equipment which might be used for internal repression will include, inter alia, equipment where there is evidence of the use of this or similar equipment for internal repression by the proposed end-user, or where there is reason to believe that the equipment will be diverted from its stated end-use or end-user and used for internal repression.

  The nature of the equipment will be considered carefully, particularly if it is intended for internal security purposes. Internal repression includes, inter alia, torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment; summary, arbitrary or extra-judicial executions; disappearances; arbitrary detentions; and other major suppression or violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms as set out in relevant international human rights instruments, including the Universal Declaration on Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

  The Government considers that in some cases the use of force by a Government within its own borders, for example to preserve law and order against terrorists or other criminals, is legitimate and does not constitute internal repression, as long as force is used in accordance with the international human rights standards described.

  Criterion Three

  The internal situation in the country of final destination, as a function of the existence of tensions or armed conflicts.

  The Government will not issue licences for exports which would provoke or prolong armed conflicts or aggravate existing tensions or conflicts in the country of final destination.

  Criterion Four

  Preservation of regional peace, security and stability.

  The Government will not issue an export licence if there is a clear risk that the intended recipient would use the proposed export aggressively against another country or to assert by force a territorial claim. However a purely theoretical possibility that the items concerned might be used in the future against another state will not of itself lead to a licence being refused.

  When considering these risks, the Government will take into account inter alia:

  (a) the existence or likelihood of armed conflict between the recipient and another country;

  (b) a claim against the territory of a neighbouring country which the recipient has in the past tried or threatened to pursue by means of force;

  (c) whether the equipment would be likely to be used other than for the legitimate national security and defence of the recipient;

  (d) the need not to affect adversely regional stability in any significant way, taking into account the balance of forces between the states of the region concerned, their relative expenditure on defence, the potential for the equipment significantly to enhance the effectiveness of existing capabilities or to improve force projection, and the need not to introduce into the region new capabilities which would be likely to lead to increased tension.

  202W
  Criterion Five

  The national security of the UK, of territories whose external relations are the UK's responsibility, and of allies, EU member states and other friendly countries.

  The Government will take into account:

  (a) the potential effect of the proposed export on the UK's defence and security interests or on those of other territories and countries as described above, while recognising that this factor cannot affect consideration of the criteria on respect of human rights and on regional peace, security and stability;

  (b) the risk of the goods concerned being used against UK forces or on those of other territories and countries as described above;

  (c) the risk of reverse engineering or unintended technology transfer;

  (d) the need to protect UK military classified information and capabilities.

  Criterion Six

  The behaviour of the buyer country with regard to the international community, as regards in particular to its attitude to terrorism, the nature of its alliances and respect for international law.

  The Government will take into account inter alia the record of the buyer country with regard to:

  (a) its support or encouragement of terrorism and international organised crime;

  (b) its compliance with its international commitments, in particular on the non-use of force, including under international humanitarian law applicable to international and non-international conflicts;

  (c) its commitment to non-proliferation and other areas of arms control and disarmament, in particular the signature, ratification and implementation of relevant arms control and disarmament conventions referred to in sub-para (b) of Criterion One.

  Criterion Seven

  The existence of a risk that the equipment will be diverted within the buyer country or re-exported under undesirable conditions.

  In assessing the impact of the proposed export on the importing country and the risk that exported goods might be diverted to an undesirable end-user, the following will be considered:

  (a) the legitimate defence and domestic security interests of the recipient country, including any involvement in UN or other peace-keeping activity;

  (b) the technical capability of the recipient country to use the equipment;

  (c) the capability of the recipient country to exert effective export controls.

  The Government will pay particular attention to the need to avoid diversion of UK exports to terrorist organisations. Proposed exports of anti-terrorist equipment will be given particularly careful consideration in this context.

  Criterion Eight

  The compatibility of the arms exports with the technical and economic capacity of the recipient country, taking into account the desirability that states should achieve their legitimate needs of security and defence with the least diversion for armaments of human and economic resources.

  The Government will take into account, in the light of information from relevant sources such as United Nations Development Programme, World bank, IMF and Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development reports, whether the proposed export would seriously undermine the economy or seriously hamper the sustainable development of the recipient country.

  The Government will consider in this context the recipient country's relative levels of military and social expenditure, taking into account also any EU or bilateral aid, and its public finances, balance of payments, external debt, economic and social development and any IMF- or World bank-sponsored economic reform programme.
  203W
  Other Factors

  Operative Provision 10 of the EU Code of Conduct specifies that member states may where appropriate also take into account the effect of proposed exports on their economic, social, commercial and industrial interests, but that these factors will not affect the application of the criteria in the Code.

  The Government will thus continue when considering export licence applications to give full weight to the UK's national interest, including:

  (a) the potential effect on the UK's economic, financial and commercial interests, including our long-term interests in having stable, democratic trading partners;

  (b) the potential effect on the UK's relations with the recipient country;

  (c) the potential effect on any collaborative defence production or procurement project with allies or EU partners;

  (d) the protection of the UK's essential strategic industrial base.

  In the application of the criteria, account will be taken of reliable evidence, including, for example, reporting from diplomatic posts, relevant reports by international bodies, intelligence and information from open sources and non-governmental organisations.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Protection of Children
  Dan Norris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he made available draft guidance on Part II of the Criminal Justice and Court Services Bill concerning the protection of children. [135510]

  Mr. Boateng
  Draft copies of the guidance for Part II of the Criminal Justice and Court Services Bill concerning the Protection of Children were placed in the Library of the House on Monday 2 October 2000.

  This is a preliminary draft of non-statutory guidance intended for those organisations that will be involved in implementing the scheme. We are seeking comments on it from a range of those organisations. It has been made available to provide an indication of how the scheme might work in practice, and to inform debate on this subject.

  Ethnic Minorities
  Mr. Ivan Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will publish the first annual report on progress on his race equality employment targets for minority ethnic staff in his Department and its service areas. [135509]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I will, tomorrow, publish the document "Race Equality—The Home Secretary's Employment Targets—The First Annual Report on Progress". This report covers progress on recruitment, retention and career progression targets for minority ethnic staff in the Home Office, the prison, the police, the fire and probation services. A copy of the report will also be placed in the Library.

  Licensing Hours
  Mr. Ivan Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if permitted hours of opening for licensed premises and registered members' clubs in England and Wales will be extended on 31 December; and if he will make a statement. [135506]
  204W
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  New Year's Eve is regarded as a special occasion and licensing justices and the magistrates' courts may, on receipt of application, grant special orders of exemption under the Licensing Act 1964, allowing licensed premises and registered members' clubs to remain open beyond the normal permitted hours. There is no limit on the extension which may be granted. This has been the practice on every New Year's Eve in the years before the Millennium. All licensees and registered members' clubs wishing to apply for extensions should do so as soon as possible.

  This year 31 December falls on a Sunday. Permitted hours for pubs, nightclubs, restaurants and registered members' clubs in England and Wales on a Sunday normally end at 10.30 pm. The Magistrates' Association and the Justices' Clerks' Society have jointly issued guidance to the licensing justices and magistrates' courts suggesting that an extension to 12.30 am on New Year's Day morning would normally be appropriate. Magistrates will be able to determine what is appropriate for their local area and may determine a later time. Where extensions are granted, this will help people to enjoy a festive New Year as they have done in the past under similar procedures.

  Because of the unique nature of last year's Millennium celebrations, permitted hours were extended nationally by amending the Licensing Act 1964 using a deregulation order, approved by Parliament, which came into force in July 1999. The Government had originally proposed applying this arrangement to all future New Year's Eves, but limited it to Millennium Eve after concerns expressed by the House of Lords Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee. The Millennium arrangements worked well; and the Government wanted to make a further deregulation order for this New Year's Eve, to provide a more typical test of the national extension. But in March the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee said in its Ninth Report (1999–2000 Parliamentary session, 15 March 2000) that they would be highly unlikely to support any further licensing deregulation ahead of general licensing reform. To bring an appropriate deregulation order into force before next New Year's Eve, under the timescales dictated by the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994 for mandatory public consultation and parliamentary scrutiny, would have required the Government to initiate the process by the end of March. In July, the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee agreed to give consideration to a further proposal in respect of New Year's Eve. By then it was too late, consistent with the requirements of the 1994 Act, to bring forward a similar order which could come into effect for this New Year's Eve. In reply to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) on 20 July 2000, Official Report, column 329W, I made it clear that the timescales for statutory public consultation and the subsequent parliamentary process were dictated by the 1994 Act, and it was now unlikely that the process could be completed in time for next New Year. We examined whether, with the co-operation of the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee and colleagues in both Houses, it was possible to obtain an Order in shorter time than that initially envisaged. We concluded that if we had done so it would have been open to legal challenge with an uncertain outcome. We have therefore decided against taking that course. We intend, however, to prepare such an order to

  205W
  apply to New Year's Eve next year, which will then provide a further test of the success of a standard national exemption.

  We remain wholly committed to the general reform of licensing law as described in the White Paper "Time for Reform", published in April this year, which would include provision for the Secretary of State to set appropriate opening times nationally for licensed premises for any special national celebrations.

  Anti-terrorism Legislation
  Mr. Darvill
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he received the report from John Rowe QC on the operation of those provisions of the Criminal Justice (Terrorism and Conspiracy) Act 1998 which are not already included in the existing review of anti-terrorism legislation. [135508]

  Mr. Straw
  Mr. Rowe has completed his investigations into the operation of the relevant provisions of the Act and communicated his findings to me on 29 August. He has found that sections 5, 6 and 7 of the Act have not yet been used.

  Crime Statistics (Taunton)
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many crimes(a) were reported and (b) led to convictions in the Taunton constituency in each year since 1979. [134318]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Details of reported crime are not available. Information on the numbers of crimes recorded by the police in the Taunton Deane local authority area has been provided by the Avon and Somerset Constabulary. The figures cover the 1993–94 financial year onwards. I understand that information for earlier years is not available.

  Recorded offences in Taunton Deane

  Number

  1993–94

  9,602

  1994–95

  9,630

  1995–96

  8,683

  1996–97

  9,692

  1997–98

  9,526

  1998–99

  8,764

  1998–991

  9,247

  1999–20001

  8,560

  1New counting rules

  Available information held centrally on the Home Office Court Proceedings Database, showing the number of offenders convicted of indictable offences at Taunton Deane Petty Sessional Division, are as follows:

  Offenders convicted for indictable offences at Taunton Deane

  PSD1

  Number

  1979

  571

  1984

  724

  1989

  510

  1993

  505

  1994

  497

  1995

  450

  1996

  479

  1997

  566

  206W

  Offenders convicted for indictable offences at Taunton Deane

  PSD1

  Number

  1998

  533

  19992

  576

  1Includes those found guilty at the Crown Court where the committing Petty Sessional Division was Taunton Deane

  2Provisional

  Note:

  Due to disproportionate cost, selected years only are given

  It is important to note that as recorded crime data relate to offences, and convictions data relate to offenders, the two sets of figures are not directly comparable.

  Entry Refusals
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received over the proposed sum to be paid by those who will wish to lodge an appeal against the refusal of a visitor's entry certificate. [134423]

  Mrs. Roche
  We have received representations expressing concern about the level of the fees from seven Members of Parliament and from the National Association of Citizens' Advice Bureaux.

  This summer, we consulted 36 organisations and individuals on the terms of the Immigration Appeals (Family Visitor) Regulations. Six of the 10 respondents asked us to reconsider the charges. In partnership with the Lord Chancellor's Department, we addressed these concerns by reviewing the estimated costs of these appeals and reducing both fees, in the case of a disposal on the papers by nearly 50 per cent.

  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will consult further over the amount to be paid by those who will wish to lodge an appeal against the refusal of a visitor's entry certificate. [134424]

  Mrs. Roche
  We will conduct a review of the family visit visa appeal scheme in due course. The terms of that review have not yet been decided.

  Following consultation on the proposed Immigration Appeals (Family Visitor) Regulations, we reduced the fee for appealing. The reduction was nearly 50 per cent. in the case of paper disposals, which we expect to form the majority of cases. We will need to assess how the current arrangements are working before we consider changing them again.

  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will place the responses to the consultation document Refusal of Entry to the United Kingdom on Grounds of Criminal Conviction in the Library; what action he plans to take to amend the relevant immigration rules in the light of the consultations; and if he will make a statement. [134870]

  Mrs. Roche
  I refer to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend, the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Clark) on 24 October 2000,Official Report, column 115W.

  Police Training
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures he is taking to reform police training practices; and if he will make a statement. [134851]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary published the Government's proposals to reform police training in May 2000, following a period of consultation with the key stakeholders. The proposals are set out in the paper, "Police Training: The Way Forward", which represents an ambitious programme to raise standards and ensure relevant profession-long training for all staff. The measures requiring legislation will be implemented at the earliest legislative opportunity. Work is already in hand to implement within available funds the non-legislative proposals. A steering group drawn from the Police Training Council is overseeing most of these arrangements.

  Immigration (Overstayers)
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what obligations there are on(a) public authorities and (b) others who discover overstayers to report them to the Immigration and Nationality Directorate; and if he will make a statement. [134876]

  Mrs. Roche
  There is no legal duty for either public bodies or private individuals to report overstayers to the Immigration and Nationality Directorate. However, as with any other offence, I would urge anyone who suspects that an offence has been committed to inform the appropriate authorities.

  Asylum Seekers
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to reimburse local authorities for spending incurred in relation to(a) the establishment and (b) the running costs of regional consortia for the provision of accommodation to asylum seekers, where no contract for such provision is to be entered into. [134865]

  Mrs. Roche
  The establishment and running costs of Regional Consortia are met by the Home Office through the Enabling Grant. If any Consortium does not enter into contracts for accommodation, the portion of the grant relating to the co-ordination of local and regional services can still be provided.

  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum seekers are currently being supported under the National Asylum Seekers Support scheme; and how many are receiving both accommodation and vouchers from NASS. [134864]

  Mrs. Roche
  As at the end of September 2000, 14,2001 asylum seekers, including dependants, are being supported under the scheme administered by the National Asylum Seekers Support Service. Of these 9,5001 have been allocated support of both accommodation and vouchers.
  1Figures rounded to nearest hundred
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many in-country applications for asylum were submitted in each of the last five years 208W
  for which figures are available by persons who had been in the United Kingdom for (a) six months or less, (b) more than six months, but less than 12 months and (c) 12 months or more. [134873]

  Mrs. Roche
  I regret that reliable information on the date of arrival for persons making an in-country asylum application is not yet available. The information that is available is given in the table.

  Asylum applications received in-country1

  1995

  29,555

  1996

  17,205

  1997

  15,915

  1998

  22,670

  19992

  41,700

  1Figures rounded to the nearest 5

  2Provisional

  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum seekers who have(a) been granted asylum, (b) been granted exceptional leave to remain and (c) not had their applications for asylum determined are on (i) further and (ii) higher education courses in the United Kingdom; what is the cost to public funds; and if he will make a statement. [134874]

  Mrs. Roche
  The latest information available shows that 13,685 students in further education colleges in 1998–99 were asylum seekers (that is, had not had their applications for asylum finally determined). The cost of their education is not currently available.

  Information on the number of asylum seekers in higher education is not available, and no information on the number of those granted asylum or exceptional leave to remain in further or higher education is available.

  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much was spent on(a) the provision of legal aid and (b) other legal services for asylum seekers in each of the last five years for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement. [134867]

  Mrs. Roche
  The information is not available in the form requested. In England and Wales in the last five years legal aid has been provided in immigration and nationality cases, including to those seeking asylum as follows:

  £

  Total cost

  1995–96

  23,929

  1996–97

  26,146

  1997–98

  35,218

  1998–99

  48,800

  1999–2000

  46,167

  Grant in aid has been given to Immigration Advisory Service and to the Refugee Legal Centre in the following table, to provide representation in all immigration cases including asylum seekers. The grant is not broken down into asylum seekers and others.
  209W

  Refugee Legal Centre

  £

  Payment

  1995–96

  3,061,487

  1996–97

  3,082,000

  1997–98

  2,584,733

  1998–99

  3,263,100

  1999–2000

  3,353,000

  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which recommendations of the Vantagepoint report on asylum procedures have been implemented to date; which have yet to be implemented; which will not be implemented; and if he will make a statement. [134875]

  Mrs. Roche
  I refer the right hon. Lady to the answer the Secretary of State for the Home Office gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Laura Moffatt) on 29 February 2000,Official Report, column 255W, which set out the background to the radical overhaul of asylum decision-making processes that this Government have undertaken. The Asylum Process Project/Vantagepoint Report was part of this process.

  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary agreed in principle that the fundamental changes to the process suggested in the report should be pursued, but it was never the intention that this should be done in isolation. Many changes had already been put in place, prior to the completion of the report, as part of our strategy to speed up processes across the asylum business as a whole.

  Substantial improvements have already been made. IND has made almost 81,000 asylum decisions so far this calendar year, compared with less then 25,000 during the same period last year, an increase of 225 per cent. Decisions continue to outstrip intake and the backlog of initial decisions has fallen for eight consecutive months. The backlog is now 75,680. We remain on course to clear the backlog down to frictional levels by spring 2001.

  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what contracts have been entered into with local authorities' regional consortia to provide accommodation for asylum seekers; how many units are to be provided by the regional consortia in(a) 2000–01 and (b) 2001–02; how the actual level of provision required differs from previous estimates given to local authorities; and if he will make a statement. [134866]

  Mrs. Roche
  Three contracts have been entered into by the National Asylum Support Service (NASS) with Regional Consortia for provision of accommodation to asylum seekers. These are: with Glasgow City Council on behalf of the Scottish Consortium; with the North East Consortium; and with the Yorkshire and Humberside Consortium. The number of units that these contracts will provide is commercially confidential. During negotiations, the number of accommodation units to be provided under the contracts was discussed in the context of what was reasonable for Consortia to provide and what NASS's needs were likely to be.

  The National Asylum Support Service recently revised some of the assumptions used to forecast accommodation requirements, based on its operational experience to date, with the result that the year's national forecast is now
  210W
  some 44,000 bedspaces rather than 65,000. That revision did not alter the number of accommodation units provided under either of the two contracts already signed (with Scotland and the North East) or the one that has just been signed (with the Yorkshire and Humberside Consortium).

  Where it has not yet entered into contracts with Regional Consortia, NASS is taking the change in assumptions into account when continuing negotiations. NASS will not contract for more accommodation than it judges necessary.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what plans he has to allow retailers to provide cash change to asylum seekers using vouchers; and if he will make a statement; [134672]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the proposed review of the asylum seeker's voucher support system; what the terms of reference of the review are; who is undertaking the review; what the timescale of the review is; which individuals and organisations are being invited to make submissions on the voucher system; and if he will make a statement. [134671]

  Mr. Straw
  The Government's review of the operation of the voucher support system is being undertaken by the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green. It will include early consideration of how change and lower denomination vouchers can be issued in the context of the decisions made by Parliament and reflected in the 1999 Immigration and Asylum Act. All relevant stakeholders and interested parties are to be invited to make representations. I will place in the Library of the House a list of those organisations which contribute to the review.

  It is hoped to complete the review early next year and its conclusions will be reported to the House.

  Police Officers (Overtime Payments)
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to review overtime payments to police officers; and if he will make a statement. [134859]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  I have no present plans to review overtime payments, but will be ready to consider any suggestions made by the Police Service, through the normal negotiating machinery, in the light of their views on changes necessary to enable the service most effectively to meet future demands.

  Police Meetings
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he last met the President of the Association of Chief Police Officers and the Chairman of the Police Federation; what issues were discussed; if he will place a copy of the minutes in the Library; and if he will make a statement. [134850]

  Mr. Straw
  I last met the President of the Association of Chief Police Officers on 24 October and the Chairman of the Police Federation, with other representatives of the police services, on 9 October. A range of issues relating to policing were discussed. It has been the longstanding practice of successive administrations not to publish minutes of private meetings.

  M16 Headquarters Attack
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions he has had with the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police following the attack on M16 Headquarters; what actions have been taken to raise the level of security in London since the incident; and if he will make a statement. [134974]

  Mr. Straw
  I met with Sir John Stevens the following day (21 September). Considerable police resources have been dedicated to dealing with this very serious incident. It would not be appropriate for me to comment on particular security measures in place at any particular time. Security measures are kept under constant review by the authorities.

  Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walters) on 28 February 2000,Official Report, column 112W, if he will place in the Library copies of his correspondence since that date with the Committee on Standards in Public Life relating to the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill. [134854]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I am unaware of any further correspondence with the Neill Committee relating to the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill since the exchange of letters referred to in my answer to the hon. Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter) on 28 February.

  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on his plans to make an order allowing the foreign funding of political parties and referendums in Northern Ireland under clause 65 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill, once the Bill is enacted; and what estimate he has made of the amount of foreign funding that will be given in any one year to each party that currently fields candidates in elections in Northern Ireland. [134863]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  It is the Government's current intention to exercise the order-making power to clause 65 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill so as to disapply the provisions of Part IV of the Bill in respect of Northern Ireland parties for an initial period of four years. However, before coming to a final view on this matter the Government will undertake a further round of consultations with the main Northern Ireland parties.

  The Government have made no estimate of the amount of foreign funding that will be given in any one year to parties contesting elections in Northern Ireland. In their evidence to the Neill Committee a number of Northern Ireland parties indicated that they had received donations from abroad.

  Human Rights Act Leaflet
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the cost to public funds of the production of the leaflet "The Human Rights Act: An Introduction"; how many leaflets have been produced; how are they to be distributed; and if he will make a statement. [134869]
  212W
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Two million copies of the leaflet have been produced, at a cost of £88,120. Copies have been provided free of charge to a range of advice centres, libraries and similar organisations across the United Kingdom. Members of the public can also obtain a free copy by calling a telephone response line. Already, since 1 October there have been over 18,000 such additional requests. People want to know what fundamental rights and freedoms are safeguarded by the Human Rights Act and it is clearly right that the Government should ensure that they can be informed.

  Human Rights Act 1998
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the cost to public funds of the poetry competition for educational and other organisations conducted to mark the coming into force of the Human Rights Act 1998; how many institutions and organisations were asked to submit poems; how many persons in total are enrolled at the institutions and organisations contacted; how many poems were submitted; what the cost the public funds was of the advertisements containing the winning poems; and if he will make a statement. [134868]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The competition invited young people to explore the underlying principles of the Human Rights Act 1998 through the creative medium of their choice. It was managed on our behalf by the Citizenship Foundation, at a cost of £23,113. A total of 7,234 schools and youth groups were invited to participate, all of whom received an information pack about the competition and the Human Rights Act. 280 formal entries, involving over 1,000 young people, were received. These included poetry, drama, posters, collages, songs, board games and websites. The advertisements that used the winning poem cost £307,103 which also resulted in additional coverage by the media of the Human Rights Act launch. The standard of competition entries was high, and showed an impressive understanding by young people of the rights and responsibilities culture the Human Rights Act will help to develop. The competition as a whole played a valuable and successful part in our work to raise awareness of the Human Rights Act.

  Criminal Justice (Mode of Trial) Bill
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on his plans in respect of the Criminal Justice (Mode of Trial) (No. 2) Bill. [134673]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Criminal Justice (Mode of Trial) (No. 2) Bill was defeated on Second Reading in the House of Lords on 28 September. The Government remain convinced that the courts, rather than defendants, are best qualified to reach a view on what is the right venue for trial, and intend to bring forward further legislation when parliamentary time allows.

  Police Review
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to review(a) the structure of the police service and (b) the Police Pension Scheme; and if he will make a statement. [134856]
  213W
  Mr. Charles Clarke
  There are no present plans to alter the structure of the police service, but we will be ready to consider any suggestions made by the police service in the light of their views on changes necessary to enable the service most effectively to meet future demands. Discussions will be held with representative policing bodies over coming months on a wide range of issues on the future of policing.

  The Police Pension Scheme is currently under review.

  EU Employment Directive
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many letters he has received alleging that there was a threat to religious freedom posed by the EU directive on employment agreed between the Governments of the EU on 17 October. [135066]

  Mrs. Roche
  The European Commission put forward a package of proposals under Article 13 of the Treaty of the European Community (EC) in November 1999. The package included two directives, one on racial discrimination in particular and one on discrimination in employment and training on a wider range of grounds: sexual orientation; religion; age; and disability. These have now been agreed between the Governments of the European Union.

  The Home Office has received a total of 128 letters on the subject of the proposals as a whole. Officials have estimated that of these, 60 letters alleged that the EC Directive on employment posed a threat to religious freedom.

  David Bennet Case
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress he has made in the David Bennet case in Norwich. [134420]

  Mr. Boateng
  I understand that the inquest into the death still stands adjourned pending consideration of possible criminal proceedings.

  Sussex Police
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the number of(a) police officers and (b) police constables in Sussex police on (i) 1 May 1997 and (ii) the most recent date for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement. [134432]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Information on police numbers is collected twice a year, in March and September. The September 2000 figures will be published as soon as they have been received from all forces and validated.

  The information on the Sussex police is set out in the table.

  Sussex police

  31 March 1997

  31 March 2000

  Total number of police officers

  3,085

  2,822

  Total number of constables

  2,374

  2,140

  The reduction in police numbers during this period has been predominately due to the Chief Constable's decision to replace police officers in jobs that can be more
  214W
  effectively undertaken by civilian staff. Civilian staff numbers in March 2000 were 1,326—an increase of 179 since March 1997.

  Animal Testing
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of progress in the co-ordination between the Department of Health, the Home Office, and the Department of Trade and Industry of a joint Government/industry message on the necessity for, and benefits of, animal testing. [134426]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The Government fully accept that the progress of scientific research; the development of new medical and veterinary drugs and technologies; and consumer and environmental safety continue to depend on the use of animals. Nevertheless, we are committed to ensuring that animals are used only where fully justified and where there are no alternatives. We will continue to work with the scientific community, industry and responsible animal welfare organisations to achieve this and to ensure that the costs and benefits of the use of animals in scientific research are fully explained.

  The Home Office maintains a series of formal relationships with several sectors and interest groups as well as other Government Departments. We liaise with users and their professional bodies; with regulators in United Kingdom Government; and with industry (centering on the Association of British Pharmaceutical Industry).

  Officials also liaise with grant awarding bodies such as the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC), the Medical Research Council and the Wellcome Trust who are significant public sector research funding bodies and have established a set of principles which reflect the requirements of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986.

  We work with the Regulatory Toxicology Group, including Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, DETR, Heath & Safety Executive and the DTI, which has led to the production of the new Regulatory Toxicology Guidance which is due to be published soon.

  As a result of our setting up a data sharing working group, we have gained the endorsement of Government Departments of the principle of data sharing and agreement that United Kingdom regulatory agencies should encourage industry to extend the scope for sharing animal test data in the field of regulatory safety testing. An inter-Departmental concordat has therefore been developed as a first step in this process and should enable Government Departments to reduce the duplication of tests on animals.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what plans he has to reduce(a) the number of experiments conducted on animals and (b) the number of animals used in experiments in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement; [134277]

  (2) what plans he has to reduce the numbers of primates used in scientific procedures; and if he will make a statement; [134270]
  215W
  (3) how much has been spent by his Department on work to find alternatives to the use of animals in scientific procedures in each of the last five years; what is the projected expenditure for each of the next two years; and if he will make a statement. [134269]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Non-human primates are used in regulatory testing to help ensure the safety of medicines and are also used for other important areas of fundamental research aimed primarily at better understanding the causes of disease in humans and developing potential new treatments. They contribute, for example, to programmes of work relating to Parkinson's disease, visual impairment, stroke, diabetes, disorders of reproduction and vaccine development. The 1986 Act requires that non-human primates are only used in scientific procedures if no other species is suitable.

  In deciding whether to grant a licence for any regulated procedure, the 1986 Act requires that the likely benefits of the programme be weighed against the likely adverse effects on the animals concerned (the cost/benefit assessment) and that there are no alternatives which either replace animal use entirely, reduce the number of animals needed or refine the procedures to minimise suffering (the 3Rs). We must also be satisfied that the procedures are likely to achieve the stated objectives.

  The 1986 Act does not make provision for controlling the overall number of procedures. While we can ensure that the number of animals used in each programme of work is minimised, we cannot dictate how many applications for new project licences will be submitted, nor how many will satisfy the requirements of the cost/benefit assessment.

  The effectiveness of the Act cannot be judged by the overall number of procedures as the primary purpose of the Act is to reduce suffering.

  In addition to the rigorous application of the 3Rs we have gained the endorsement of Government Departments of the principle of data sharing and agreement that United Kingdom regulatory agencies should encourage industry to extend the scope for sharing animal test data in the field of regulatory safety testing. An inter-Departmental concordat has therefore been developed as a first step in this process and should enable Government Departments to reduce the duplication of tests on animals.

  The use of alternatives is already widely encouraged. Indeed, the use of animals in procedures is prohibited by the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 in cases where a scientifically valid alternative is available. Each year the Home Office makes available to the Animal Procedures Committee a budget aimed at developing or promoting the use of alternatives which replace animal use, reduce the number of animals used or refine the procedures involved to minimise suffering. In each of the last five years, these budgets have totalled:

  Year

  £000

  1995–96

  253

  1996–97

  242

  1997–98

  182

  1998–99

  259

  1999–2000

  259

  216W
  The budget for 2000–01 is £265,000. The budget for 2001–02 has not yet been set.

  Lord-Lieutenants
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 7 July 2000,Official Report, columns 355–56W, regarding lord-lieutenants, what expenditure was incurred by his Department in support of each lord lieutenant in the financial year 1999–2000. [134981]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Expenditure incurred by the Home Office in support of each lord lieutenant in the financial year 1999–2000 was:

  Expenditure

  Counties

  Berkshire

  3,659.04

  Cambridgeshire

  9,153.22

  Cornwall

  6,702.14

  Devon

  6,709.74

  Dorset

  781.84

  East Sussex

  4,327.75

  Essex

  475.47

  Gloucestershire

  4,305.94

  Hampshire

  20,239.20

  Herefordshire

  1,789.76

  Hertfordshire

  744.98

  Isle of Wight

  739.85

  Kent

  3,369.86

  Lancashire

  2,105.76

  Lincolnshire

  2,611.43

  Norfolk

  3,392.24

  North Yorkshire

  7,164.08

  Nottingham

  4,910.63

  Northamptonshire

  1,578.92

  Oxfordshire

  3,626.04

  Rutland

  594.19

  Somerset

  2,135.87

  Staffordshire

  4,081.33

  Suffolk

  1,833.68

  Surrey

  4,554.15

  West Sussex

  3,658.33

  Wiltshire

  2,402.38

  Metropolitan

  Bristol

  28,050.00

  Durham

  26,897.18

  East Riding

  17,620.00

  Greater London

  60,026.76

  Greater Manchester

  104,850.00

  Merseyside

  75,915.00

  South Yorkshire

  33,900.00

  Tyne and Wear

  63,180.00

  West Midlands

  101,599.00

  West Yorkshire

  62,000.00

  Crime Initiatives (Builders)
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what funding has been made available by his Department to projects in (1) England to combat incompetent and dishonest builders as part of crime initiatives; [134853]

  (2) Leeds to combat incompetent and dishonest builders as part of crime initiatives, and in what form. [134852]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  As part of the Reducing Burglary Initiative, the Home Office has provided funding for a project in Leeds which is primarily aimed at reducing
  217W
  distraction burglary (burglary artifice). One element of the project, however, is the creation of a 'check-point' scheme which will contain a list of approved contractors who provide a reliable service at a reasonable cost. £131,000 has been identified specially for this element of the project.

  Matters relating to the construction industry generally and moves to improve the service offered to the public by builders are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions. I support work currently being undertaken by his Department to tackle the problem.

  Oakington Reception Centre
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington), 14 April 2000,Official Report, column 292W, if he will provide a breakdown, by major category, of the weekly unit cost of housing an asylum seeker at Oakington reception centre (a) at present and (b) when the centre is operating at full capacity; and if he will provide a breakdown of the costs incurred in establishing Oakington reception centre. [134855]

  Mrs. Roche
  Oakington was set up in March 2000 with an initial capacity of 144 beds. Asylum seekers were taken in on a carefully phased programme. The set up costs to date amount to about £5 million and are expected to reach £6 million.

  In September (the last full month for which figures are available), the average daily population was 101 and the weekly unit cost was £2,700. Occupancy has since increased rapidly and is now 176 resulting in a reduction in the unit cost which will continue to fall as the population increases to full capacity. When operating at full capacity, the cost would be £800 per person.

  These figures are higher than those given in the reply to the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) on 14 April. The first figure in that reply was based on the cost of an available space. It appears that the second figure may not have included all the costs of the establishment.

  Police Reform
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the new agenda for reform of the police, discussed at his meeting with the Prime Minister on 26 June; and if it has been discussed with representatives of the police force. [134861]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Calls for a Royal Commission or reforms of policing by other means have come from a number of police sources. On 9 October, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, held a seminar with the leaders of the Association of Chief Police Officers, the Association of Police Authorities, the Police Superintendents' Association, the Police Federation and Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary. Its purpose was to identify the areas in which the police service itself felt there was a need for change and development to meet future requirements. Further discussions with police representative bodies will take place over coming months to explore in more detail a wide range of issues identified 218W
  at the seminar. As was made clear to seminar participants, the Government have no pre-set agenda but are interested in making any improvements which will help achieve our objective of crime reduction.

  Criminal Records
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) when the criminal conviction certificate, criminal record certificate and enhanced criminal record certificate will be introduced; and if he will make a statement; [134473]

  (2) what information from a person's criminal record will be disclosed on the enhanced criminal record certificate; and if he will make a statement; [134472]

  (3) what information from a person's criminal record may be disclosed to potential employers and external immigration agencies; and if he will make a statement; [134474]

  (4) what information from a person's criminal record will be disclosed on the criminal record certificate; and if he will make a statement; [134471]

  (5) if a fixed penalty fine for a speeding offence will appear on the criminal conviction certificate, criminal record certificate and the enhanced criminal record certificate; and if he will make a statement. [134475]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Criminal Records Bureau will issue to individual applicants, on request, one or more of three different levels of certificate, according to the circumstances of the job or position in question:
  A criminal conviction certificate (CCC), which will show all convictions which are not 'spent' under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974;A criminal record certificate (CCC), which will contain details of both spent and unspent convictions, and cautions, reprimands and final warnings, recorded at national level and will be issued only where the job or position requires this level of disclosure;An enhanced criminal record certificate (ECRC), which, in addition to the information in a criminal record certificate, will contain relevant information from local police records, and will be issued only where a further restricted group of particularly sensitive jobs or positions so require.
  Data on convictions will, in the main, be drawn directly from the Police National Computer. Fixed penalties are not recorded there, but it is possible that the police might consider that information about such a case, drawn from local police records, was relevant to the job for which the person had applied and should be included in an ECRC.

  The immigration authorities of overseas countries will be able to ask potential emigrants from Britain for a criminal conviction certificate, but the CRB will not provide criminal record certificates or enhanced criminal record certificates for emigration purposes, except in certain circumstances where it can be demonstrated that the emigrant is being considered for a post for which such certificates would be issued if it were in the United Kingdom.

  Detailed planning is continuing, but at present it is expected that the CRB will begin issuing CRCs and ECRCs from around July 2001, and CCCs from around July 2002.

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by Lord Bishop of Lincoln): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
The Lord Chancellor: Leave of Absence
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Irvine of Lairg): My Lords, before business begins, I take the opportunity to inform the House that I am to make an official visit to Newcastle upon Tyne to take part in the Magistrates' Association dinner and to address its annual general meeting and conference tomorrow, Friday 27th October, when the House will sit. Accordingly, I trust that the House will grant me leave of absence.

Millennium Dome: Sale
3.1 p m.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns Baroness Anelay of St Johns asked Her Majesty's Government:
What progress they have made with their plans to sell the site of the Millennium Dome.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord Falconer of Thoroton): My Lords, the Government are currently in discussion with Legacy plc in relation to Legacy's proposal for a high technology business campus at the Greenwich site. The Legacy proposal is currently being analysed by the competition team in advance of any decision on preferred bidder status. We hope to make an announcement in due course, but I can assure the noble Lord that the Government are determined to get the best deal for the regeneration of east London.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. He referred to the "best deal". In that connection, what action has he taken in response to the information supplied by the chairman of the Dome Company, David James, to the effect that the best way of offsetting the Dome's enormous losses and of maximising the value for that site would be to pull down the Dome and thereby to achieve three times the amount of money from its sale as the Government will achieve by making a bargain basement deal with Bourne Legacy?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Baroness for calling her a noble Lord! No such information has been provided to me by the chairman of the Dome Company. Before any deal is done, all options will be considered to ensure that it is the best value for money.
Lord Acton: My Lords, is my noble and learned friend aware that this morning's Independent reported
478
a record number of 38,300 visitors to the Dome on Monday; 35,000 on Tuesday, a similar number yesterday and no doubt even more today? Can he give a current estimate of the number of visitors for the entire year?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the current budget, copies of which are available in the House today, is based on 4.5 million revenue-generating visitors. I saw the article in the Independent. It is accurate, but I have been in this job for long enough not to make any claims in relation to it.
Lord Elton: My Lords, presumably in closing the operation, the intention is to minimise loss. Did the Minister learn with surprise—perhaps he did not and I am misinformed—that the whole facility of the Dome is to be made available free of charge on its last day?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, after the Dome closes on its last day, 31st December, there will be a party arranged by the Ministry of Sound. The facility will be free to that organisation, but catering arrangements will be made. That is the best value for money use on 31st December.
Lord Peston: My Lords, is my noble and learned friend aware that some of us regard the building as a marvellous piece of architecture? It would be an act of sacrilege to pull down such an excellent building. In this case, money is not the only criterion which might be applied to the problem. Is there a statutory obligation to sell the Dome? Would not the best value way forward be to keep the Dome in the public sector and use it for one of the many purposes which many of us have been advocating for some time, including as an indoor sports arena?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, there is no statutory obligation to sell the Dome. However, the Government have stated that they wish to try to find a buyer for it. That is what we are doing. I agree with my noble friend that the building is impressive. There are different views on that, but many people would agree with my noble friend.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, there are a large number of derelict acres of land around the Dome, which I fly over every week. Can the Minister tell the House whether the whole acreage of derelict land around the Dome is for sale; if not, how much is for sale and what percentage is unpolluted?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the north Greenwich peninsula on which the Dome stands was decontaminated to a level which matched the then plans for that peninsula. Much, although not all, of the north Greenwich peninsular is owned by English Partnerships. The part on which the Dome stands is subject to a lease from the company which owns the Dome. It is for English Partnerships to decide what it

479
wishes to do with that land not covered by the lease. It has bought the land with a view to regenerating that part of London.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, I refer to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Peston. I wonder whether the Minister is slightly confused. Is he saying that the objective for the conclusion of this exercise is that the taxpayer shall get best value for money, or is it still open that something may be done which is not best value for money, such as preserving this memorial to disaster?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I hope that I was not confused about the position, which the Government made clear about a year ago. A competition was set up with a view to selling the Dome. There were two shortlisted bidders: Nomura, which dropped out, and Legacy plc, with which we are currently having discussions. The competition involved preserving the Dome. The buyers take the Dome subject to obligations to preserve it. Value for money and appropriate use were among the factors to be taken into account in determining who would succeed in the competition. Both preserving and selling the Dome are met by the terms of the competition.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, did the Minister take any comfort from a press report that the German Government have lost even more money on a piece of foolishness?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, happily, my responsibilities are for the Dome, not for any German millennium projects.
Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen: My Lords, is the Minister aware that those who work in the Dome and the surrounding area followed closely the discussions in this House on the Dome and in particular on its future? Will my noble friend continue to bear them in mind when any future discussions take place on the Dome?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: Yes, my Lords; I shall. I am grateful for the opportunity to say that whoever else was to blame, the staff who have worked in the Dome have played no part in that story. Indeed, they have contributed massively to the enjoyment experienced by many visitors to the Dome.
Lord Eden of Winton: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Peston, that the building is a fine piece of architecture. However, when the building was planned and designed, was not the original intention that it would not be required to remain in existence for more than one or two years? If the Minister is attempting now to find some further use for the building in years to come, does not the point made by my noble friend Lady Carnegy of Lour bear much further and more serious consideration by the
480
Minister; that is, that the future existence of the whole venture should be integrated with the surrounding development and infrastructure?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the noble Lord is correct that when the Dome was originally built, it was envisaged that it would be a temporary structure, but the Government decided that they would have a competition to dispose of it on a permanent basis. I entirely agree with the comments of the noble Lord. As I hope that I made clear in the Answer, the regeneration of east London and north Greenwich must play a crucial part in decisions about what happens to the Dome. That was one of the vital factors in deciding the winner of the competition.

European Union: Political Integration
3.9 p.m.
Lord Blaker Lord Blaker asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their policy towards closer political integration in the European Union.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, as my right honourable friend the Prime Minister said in his widely publicised speech on 6th October in Warsaw,
"We want to be a part of a larger, stronger democratic Europe. A Europe of free, independent sovereign nations who choose to pool that sovereignty in pursuit of their own interests and the common good, achieving more together than we can achieve alone".
Lord Blaker: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that Answer. But why have the British people become slowly more hostile to the euro and the European Union under this Government?
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, I do not know how to comment on what the noble Lord, Lord Blaker, chooses to read into opinion polls. All I can say is that it is clear that the people of Britain, along with the people of other member states, want a lot from Europe. They do not simply want a free trade area; they want peace, prosperity and security. That is what this Government are trying to achieve with European developments.
Lord Tomlinson: My Lords—
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords—
Noble Lords: Tomlinson!
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Jay of Paddington): My Lords, I cannot see behind me but I gather from voices around the House that my noble friend Lord Tomlinson should perhaps ask the next question.
Lord Tomlinson: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that when the British people made a decisive decision in a referendum to maintain our membership

481
of what was then the European Community, they did so on the basis of the Treaty of Rome, which envisaged ever closer union with the peoples of Europe?
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, I completely agree with my noble friend. That was exactly the point I was trying to make. The British people did not make a decision just to go into a free trade area, despite the propaganda we now hear from some circles in this country.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, in the light of the Minister's reply, does she agree that perhaps the major political goal in Europe in this decade is the enlargement of the European Union to contain the fragile new democracies of central and eastern Europe? Does she agree also that to achieve that aim it is essential to bring about an extension of qualified majority voting and a reform of the Commission along the lines Her Majesty's Government indicated they would support at the forthcoming Nice summit?
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, the noble Baroness raised a number of points. I entirely agree with her. The Prime Minister made very clear in his speech in Warsaw that enlargement is a basic goal of this Government. We hope, and it is our intention, that the new applicants will be participants in the next IGC and that they will start to come in at the end of 2002. We hope for a significant breakthrough on that front during the Swedish presidency.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, whether or not the Prime Minister is in favour of the euro—that seems to change from day to day—will the noble Baroness encourage him to give a robust "no" to some of the less attractive, deeper integrationist proposals that are now being incorporated in the draft treaty of Nice? I refer to suggestions such as the idea that the charter of fundamental human rights should be given full legal status and that the veto should be taken away on tax policy and in many other areas as well. Will the Minister agree also that the idea of a hard-core, fast-track integration may be completely upside down? The best way to achieve the kind of European unity, stability and prosperity that we all want may be by avoiding too much integration and going on a fast-track that lies outside those ideas. Forcing people together is not the best way of binding them together. Does the noble Baroness agree with that?
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, I cannot answer, "Does she agree with that?", when so many points were raised by the noble Lord, Lord Howell. However, I shall try to deal with as many as I can in the time that is acceptable to the House.
The question of enhanced or closer co-operation is not new. That was a mechanism agreed at the Amsterdam IGC and it lets a group of member states move ahead with co-operation in a specific area. I can assure the noble Lord that the Prime Minister made it clear and it is the position of our Government that enhanced co-operation has to be genuinely open to all
482
member states who want to take part. It should not be used to form a hard-core or two-speed Europe and it should not undermine the single market.
We are open to looking at the question of qualified majority voting. But we made clear that the veto will be kept in all areas that we consider essential to British interests, including the area of tax.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords—
Lord Grenfell: My Lords—
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Stoddart tried to speak earlier. It may be sensible to hear his question now.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I am grateful to the Leader of the House. Is my noble friend aware that I read the Prime Minister's speech on 6th October with great interest? But can she tell me how his speech squares with the speech made in the European Parliament by Mr Prodi, when he said,
"The single market was the theme of the Eighties; the single currency was the theme of the Nineties; we must now face the difficult task of moving towards a single economy, a single political unity"?
Can my noble friend tell me how those statements square with each other? Can she say also whether, in the light of the Prime Minister's speech, he is prepared to veto the proposal which will be made at Nice for a charter of fundamental human rights and not give away any more veto powers?
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, there have been many significant speeches by European leaders over the past few months. We have had speeches from President Chirac, Joschka Fischer, Mr Prodi, Chancellor Schroeder and our Prime Minister on 6th October in Warsaw. Why should they all agree? Is it not marvellous that there is this great debate going on throughout Europe about its future?
We have made it crystal clear again and again from this Dispatch Box and anywhere else that has been appropriate that the United Kingdom will not accept the charter of fundamental human rights as a legally binding text; it is not to be a legally binding document. That has been agreed and we do not need to keep making that point.

New Electricity Trading Arrangements
3.17 p.m.
Lord Ezra Lord Ezra asked Her Majesty's Government:
When they expect the new electricity trading arrangements (NETA) to be introduced.
The Minister for Science, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville): My Lords, the new electricity trading arrangements were originally scheduled to go "live" between the end of October and

483
the middle of December. That timescale was always very tight and in mid-September it became apparent to Ofgem that problems which had arisen during the testing of the central IT systems would mean that that target period could not be achieved. Ofgem is undertaking a comprehensive replanning exercise and I expect a firm implementation date to be announced shortly.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that information. Does he not agree that it is worrying that this important measure has been subject to delay? It is similar to major computer problems that occurred in other areas in recent times. For example, it was announced this morning that the Inland Revenue has lost a number of tax returns, which may or may not be to the advantage of those concerned. Can the Minister assure us that when the complex new system is introduced, there will be sufficient back-up in case it fails? Furthermore, will the Government take advantage of the interval now available to ensure that there is a supplier of last resort in case any existing supplier is unable to fulfil its obligations, such as occurred recently with the insolvency of Independent Energy?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, for giving me the opportunity to talk about a subject every bit as exciting as the Dome and European political integration. The team of people working on the new electricity trading arrangements—the DTI, Ofgem, the National Grid Company and Logica—are working extremely effectively together. We should be able to produce a robust system. It is through ensuring that it is robust and that the interfaces are right that this delay has occurred.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, do the Government realise that failure to set a date for NETA is doing us immeasurable harm in the European context? Hitherto, we have enjoyed a premier position as leader in liberalising the energy markets of Europe. With every month of delay, we are rapidly losing that position. Does the Minister recognise that it will not do for him now to say nothing more than that a firm date will be announced at some time in the future? A date must be set. Does the Minister recognise what damage will occur if it is not?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, it is fair to say that the previous system was hardly a price-making mechanism; it was simply a price-taking mechanism. It was therefore subject to many problems. We are introducing the new system in order to correct the situation and to have a proper pricing mechanism. I am surprised that the noble and learned Lord, of all people, should not be interested in producing a proper market mechanism.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, as regards new power stations, how many applications, which should have been announced soon, are being delayed?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, there are restrictive applications and on that basis a number of
484
gas applications are not going forward. I cannot give an exact figure in relation to what has happened in the past few months but I shall write to the noble Lord.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, what penalty arrangements apply to the late supply of IT equipment? If the question is too complicated to answer off the cuff, can the Minister put a paper in the Library of the House?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, that situation is not applicable in terms of penalties because it relates to the interfaces between the system which is designed and the system with which it will interconnect. In those terms, it is not suitable to talk about blame lying with one of the parties.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, the Minister failed to comment on the point I raised about the supplier of last resort. Is it not important that under the new trading arrangements ordinary users of electricity should know that if their supplier goes out of business they will automatically continue to be supplied?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the basis of the system is that it is about balancing the supply and demand when there are equally a large number of people demanding and a large number of suppliers. The system is designed to deal with exactly the situation in which one supplier is not able to supply.

Medeva: Polio Vaccine
3.23 p.m.
Lord Clement-Jones Lord Clement-Jones asked Her Majesty's Government:
What further action they plan to take following their recent decision to withdraw certain batches of polio vaccine manufactured by Medeva.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): My Lords, Ministers are establishing what can be learnt from the events leading to the decision to withdraw the oral polio vaccine and the adequacy of the MCA's procedures to gather and validate information from vaccine manufacturers and its advice to Ministers on this issue.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. I hope he will accept that it was regrettable that no ministerial Statement was made last week, particularly as it took two months after discovery for the department to announce the problems with the polio vaccine. Is the Minister satisfied that the MCA will not be misled about the contents of vaccines and that their manufacture in the factories is of a sufficiently high standard, particularly at the Medeva factory in Speke?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the review which we undertake must examine the procedures

485
which the MCA uses to ensure that manufacturers are conducting their affairs in accordance with the standards and guidelines laid down. We shall want to examine that carefully.
I can assure the noble Lord that the MCA has inspected the Speke site vigorously and frequently. Indeed, I understand that it inspected the site four times this year in order to ensure that problems are not giving rise to public health hazards, that they are being resolved satisfactorily and that appropriate standards are being met.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, is the flu vaccine, which is in such short supply, manufactured by the same company? Why is it that so many people over 65 who responded to the superb advertisements for flu inject ions cannot get them?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, Medeva is one of the companies which produces the flu vaccine. Of the five manufacturers supplying the UK market, all except one are on target to produce the supplies when required. That one company is called Solva and it supplies about 15 per cent of the total market. It has estimated that it will be able to resolve the problems and deliver the additional doses required during the week 20th to 24th November.
Lord Williamson of Horton: My Lords, as one of those who has received a polio vaccine manufactured by Medeva within the past month, I want to ask whether the company breached the European guidelines. If it did, will there be a penalty? I want to be a Member of this House for some years yet.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I understand that it is considered that it did breach the 1999 guidelines and consideration will be given to action being taken against the company in relation to that. However, the guidelines will have the full force of law for existing products from spring next year. As regards their legal status, the guidelines at present relate to new products. However, in order to ensure public confidence in the vaccine programme, the Government took the decision that, because this product breached 1999 guidelines, it was right to withdraw that vaccine.
Perhaps I may reassure the noble Lord that the Committee on the Safety of Medicines established a working party yesterday and, on the basis of additional information available to it, it confirmed its conclusions that no TSE safety issues arose from the use of UK source bovine materials in the manufacture of vaccines currently marketed in the UK.
Baroness Northover: My Lords, can the Minister confirm that oral vaccines will now be treated in the same way as injectable vaccines?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, yes, I can confirm that. Undoubtedly, they are covered by the 1999 guidelines.
Earl Howe: My Lords, does the Minister agree that public confidence in the NHS vaccination programme
486
is a paramount consideration? Does he also agree that, if that is to be achieved and if false fears are to be banished, there must be absolute openness both by government and the pharmaceutical industry? Will he confirm that government and industry have firmly adhered to that principle?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I agree that enhancing and ensuring public confidence in the vaccine programme in this country is essential. It is worth reminding the House that the success of our immunisation programme has resulted in the incidence of childhood diseases falling to their lowest ever levels. It is very important to ensure that the public are aware of the importance of immunisation.
It is important that there is openness in the performance of the regulatory agencies. I believe that this Government have proved themselves to be as open as possible as regards these issues. When the matter was reported to Ministers last week, we took action effectively and speedily.
Earl Russell: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the views of the noble Earl, Lord Howe, on the need to maintain public confidence are widely shared? Would he further agree that, as secrecy reaches epidemic proportions within both Whitehall and business, that objective might be more easily achieved in the light of a more tightly drafted Freedom of Information Bill?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I would say only that the Department of Health wants to ensure public confidence in the vaccine programme. We accept that openness and vigour in the process of licensing and regulation is an important component of that. We are as committed as anyone can be to ensuring that that is done satisfactorily.

Business of the House: State Opening
3.30 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I make a brief statement on the date of State Opening. I hope that your Lordships will be pleased to hear that State Opening will be on Wednesday 6th December.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I thank the Government Chief Whip for finally coming to the House to give the date of State Opening. Will the noble Lord confirm that this is the first time since the Second World War, perhaps since even the First World War or even earlier, that State Opening has been as late as December? Will the noble Lord also confirm that there has been full co-operation and absolutely no filibustering by this side in dealing with the vast amount of legislation before the House? I give the example of the Countryside and Rights of Way Bill. It was intended originally that that Bill would occupy about 10 days in Committee, but we managed to finish it in some six days.

487
Will the noble Lord also confirm that it is not only the number of Bills before the House which has resulted in this unprecedented late State Opening but the fact that many of them have had to be rewritten as they have proceeded through the House, not by this side but, as often as not, by the Government? One has only to consider the saga of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill. The noble Lord will recall that the first day in Committee on that Bill, which emanated from the Home Office, was back in May. On the second day in Committee noble Lords had to consider some 100 pages of government amendments to a Bill which itself was scarcely longer than that.
Can the noble Lord also confirm that much the same was true of the Financial Services and Markets Bill? Will he remind noble Lords of just how many government amendments to that Bill were tabled and the fact that, just one month after Royal Assent, it had to be amended because of the passage through this House of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill? I could also mention the Freedom of Information and Criminal Justice (Mode of Trial) Bills, and the time that the Government wasted on Clause 28.
In passing, I remind the Government Chief Whip that many of those Bills emanate from the Home Office. It may be that the noble Lord will want to have a word with some of his colleagues in that department. Perhaps the noble Lord and the Leader of the House can take a slightly stronger line with that department when they consider legislation that is to be brought before the House next year.
I end by asking for an assurance from the noble Lord that we shall have a considerably lighter burden next year. This year we have already sat on 155 days—that surpasses the figure last year when we sat for longer than the Commons—and there are 18 or more days to go. That is asking a lot of this House which has sat to midnight and beyond virtually every day since we returned from the Summer Recess. I hope that the noble Lord will offer us a lighter passage next year.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I am grateful to the Opposition Chief Whip. He is misinformed about the lateness of State Opening. In 1921 State Opening was on 14th December. I am tempted to observe that some of your Lordships may well remember it! The Opposition have not filibustered and, through the usual channels, there has been the customary co-operation. The noble Lord said that originally 10 days had been allocated to the Committee stage of the Countryside and Rights of Way Bill. The Opposition asked for 10 days; I offered five days, and it took six.
The number of Bills this Session has not been exceptional compared with others. I agree that a large number of amendments have been tabled, but we are a listening government and respond to sensible requests for improvements to Bills. This is not unusual. I recall that when I sat on the Benches opposite at Report stage of an education Bill 400 amendments were tabled in this House, which is a
488
second Chamber. In nine of the past 20 years, the Queen's Speech has taken place in the second half of November. It is a little later this year. However, the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, is on record as saying that the Government are entitled to get their programme. I entirely agree with him, and I organise the business to that end.
Lord Renton: My Lords, will the noble Lord bear in mind that it would be to the advantage of the Government, Parliament and the people if legislation contained clear statements of principle and was encumbered with much less detail? Will the noble Lord seek to persuade the departments and Parliamentary Counsel to legislate in the way that I suggest?
Lord Carter: My Lords, that view is not shared by all those involved in the preparation of legislation. It is believed that purpose statements, which were quite common in the 19th century, lead to considerable legal problems in the interpretation of Acts. But I agree that there is a debate to be had on the balance between what appears in primary legislation and what appears in secondary legislation.

BSE
3.38 p.m.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Baroness Hayman): My Lords, with the permission of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, I wish to make a Statement on the report of the BSE inquiry chaired by Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers. Today, the Government are publishing the report, and I want to announce our initial response and to outline a package of measures for the benefit of people suffering from variant CJD and their families, as well as the families of people who have already died of the disease. This is not, however, the occasion to announce the Government's substantive response to the inquiry's report. That will come later.
"I should like to express the Government's thanks to Lord Phillips, Mrs June Bridgeman and Professor Malcolm Ferguson Smith for their very thorough inquiry which has occupied them for the best part of the past three years.
"As the Government recognised when setting up the inquiry, BSE is a national tragedy. To date, 85 definite or probable cases of variant CJD have been reported in the UK. Of those 85, 80 people have died. There is an unknown number of cases yet to come. It is not possible to give precise forecasts because of the many uncertainties about the disease. I know that the whole House will join me in expressing deepest sympathy to those who have fallen victim to variant CJD, and to their families.

489
"BSE has also had a serious impact on many tens of thousands of people whose livelihoods depend on the rearing of livestock and the processing and manufacturing of meat products.
"The inquiry was set up by my right honourable friends the Member for Copeland, the Member for Holborn and St Pancras and the Secretaries of State for Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales. Its remit was to establish and review the history of the emergence and identification of BSE and new variant CJD and to reach conclusions on the adequacy of the response, taking into account the state of knowledge at the time.
"The inquiry report comprises 16 volumes and some 4,000 pages. Volume 1 sets out the key findings and conclusions. Quoting directly from the report's executive summary, the key conclusions are as follows:
BSE developed into an epidemic as a consequence of an intensive farming practice: the recycling of animal protein in ruminant feed. This practice, unchallenged over decades, proved a recipe for disaster.
In the years up to March 1996 most of those responsible for responding to the challenge posed by BSE emerged with credit. However, there were a number of shortcomings in the way things were done.
At the heart of the BSE story lie questions of how to handle hazard—a known hazard to cattle and an unknown hazard to humans. The Government took measures to address both hazards. They were sensible measures, but they were not always timely, nor adequately implemented and enforced.
The rigour with which policy measures were implemented for the protection of human health was affected by the belief of many prior to early 1996 that BSE was not a potential threat to human life.
The Government were anxious to act in the best interests of human and animal health. To this end it sought and followed the advice of independent scientific experts—sometimes when decisions could have been reached more swiftly and satisfactorily within government.
In dealing with BSE, it was not MAFF's policy to lean in favour of agricultural producers to the detriment of the consumer.
At times officials showed a lack of rigour in considering how policy should be turned into practice, to the detriment of the efficacy of the measures taken. At times bureaucratic processes resulted in unacceptable delay in giving effect to policy.
The Government introduced measures to guard against the risk that BSE might be a matter of life and death not merely for cattle but also for humans, but the possibility of a risk to humans was not communicated to the public or to those whose job it was to implement and enforce the precautionary measures.
The Government did not lie to the public about BSE. They believed that the risks posed by BSE to humans were remote. The Government were preoccupied with preventing an alarmist overreaction to BSE because they believed that the risk was remote. It is now clear that this campaign of reassurance was a mistake. When on 20th March 1996 the Government announced that BSE had probably been transmitted to humans, the public felt that they had been betrayed. Confidence in government pronouncements about risk was a further casualty of BSE.
490
Cases of a new variant of CJD were identified by the CJD Surveillance Unit and the conclusion that they were probably linked to BSE, was reached as early as was reasonably possible. The link between BSE and variant CJD is now clearly established, although the manner of infection is not clear'.
Those are direct quotes from the Phillips report executive summary.
"The Government welcome the report. We will be studying its findings with care and looking closely at the lessons that flow from them. It is right that this House—and the wider public—should have the opportunity to do so too. They are important findings and they address some fundamental questions about the adequacy of the response to BSE.
"The report contains many lessons for public administration. Areas where we will be focusing our response include the implementation of policy decisions; the process of contingency planning; co-ordination across government departments and other agencies; the assessment, management and communication of risk; the role of scientific advisory committees; and government's assessment and use of scienitfic advice.
"Even now, there are some questions about BSE which are unresolved. We do not know with certainty how the disease entered the cattle herd; nor why it has been so predominantly a disease affecting this country. Lord Phillips's conclusion is that the origin of BSE is likely to have been a new prion mutation in cattle, or possibly sheep, in the early 1970s. In the light of this conclusion, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health and I will be commissioning an independent assessment of current scientific understanding, including emerging findings, on the origins of the BSE epidemic. This study will then be considered by the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee and published.
"While it was beyond the remit of the inquiry to examine current public protection measures, the House will want to know that the chairman of the Food Standards Agency advises that the inquiry report gives rise to no immediate need for new food safety measures. He intends to discuss this aspect of the report at the next public meeting of the agency's ongoing BSE controls review.
"Both the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee and the Food Standards Agency board propose to review relevant elements of the report. We will take account of any conclusions or advice they wish to offer in the Government's response to the report. The same applies to the Select Committees of this House.
"The Government will announce their substantive response to the report in the coining months. Following this announcement the House will have an early opportunity to debate in government time both the report and the Government's response.

491
"However, there is one element in the inquiry's report which the Government are singling out for attention now. That is the care of patients suffering from variant CJD and support for the families caring for them.
"The needs of variant CJD victims were frequently insufficiently addressed, especially in the early days of the disease. The rapidly degenerative nature of variant CJD requires timely and accurate diagnosis and a swift response from the local health and social services. Patient care has been variable in the past and not always responsive enough to the rapidly changing needs of patients.
"My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health issued new guidelines in August to improve the care of variant CJD victims. The Government now intend to go further.
"I can tell the House that given the special circumstances of these patients, my right honourable friend will now establish a new national fund for the care of victims of variant CJD. The fund will ensure a speedy response to diagnosis and improvements in the quality of care for patients. This package will be co-ordinated through the national CJD surveillance unit in Edinburgh.
"The new national care fund will be used to purchase care and equipment appropriate to the individual needs of variant CJD patients. The fund will be held by the CJDSU care co-ordinator, supported by a new national network of experts available to support local clinicians and local social services caring for patients wherever they live.
"My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health met families of variant CJD victims and representatives of the Human BSE Foundation yesterday to discuss this new package of care. Over the next few weeks his department will be working with the families affected to refine the package to ensure it is effective and properly meets the needs of patients.
"This dreadful disease has a devastating effect on victims and their families. The families have campaigned for improved diagnosis and care for those who may yet be affected by this national tragedy. I am sure the House will want to acknowledge the dignified and constructive way in which they have done so.
"In addition to the enhanced care package, we are determined to provide appropriate support for those who are suffering from variant CJD, for those who care for them and for the families of those who have already died.
"The Government therefore intend to put in place financial arrangements to benefit sufferers from variant CJD and their families, taking account of their particular needs in individual cases.
"The Government's preferred option would be to establish a compensation scheme, resulting in a special trust fund, which could amount to millions of pounds. There are a number of other possible
492
options. We intend to work closely with the families affected to identify the best way forward. The first discussions with the families and their representatives will take place next week.
"The Government want to express their appreciation for the co-operation of all witnesses who have been called before the inquiry. Although the inquiry team stated that,
'any who have come to our Report hoping to find villains or scapegoats, should go away disappointed',
the report does make a number of specific criticisms of a number of individuals.
"I shall not comment on individual cases. The report contains an annex listing those who are criticised. Some of the individuals criticised also receive praise from the inquiry. There is no corresponding list of individuals who are praised. Elsewhere, the report identifies shortcomings which do not amount to criticisms, and therefore do not feature in the annex. For both those reasons, it is important that the report is considered in its entirety.
"Whenever serving public servants are subjected to criticism by a public inquiry, the question arises whether any form of disciplinary action should be taken. The report states that,
'if those criticised were misguided, they were nonetheless acting in accordance with what they conceived to be the proper performance of their duties'.
However, mindful of the importance of the issues covered by the inquiry, an independent person, Sheila Forbes, a Civil Service commissioner, will lead a review and advise accordingly. The Government want this review to be carried out quickly across the departments involved.
"The devolved administrations also received the report and will respond for their interests.
"Members will also wish to know that I am today sending copies of the report to the European Commission, the European Parliament and to the governments of each EU member state. In addition, I have arranged for the report to be placed on the Internet, accessible via the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food's website.
"On taking office in 1997 the Government put consumers at the heart of decision-making on food safety issues. We have established the independent Food Standards Agency. We have opened up our scientific advisory committees, including the appointment of consumer representatives. We have put scientific advice to government in the public domain, encouraging a culture of openness, trusting the public and stimulating informed public debate. The 'deregulation culture' that called for a 'bonfire of regulations' has been replaced by a proportionate approach that strives for better regulation with the protection of the public at its heart. We have put in place working arrangements to encourage the sharing of ideas and information between government departments and agencies.

493
"The inquiry has made a very thorough assessment of the history of BSE and of the response of the government of the day. It has added greatly to our understanding of this detailed and complex area. Work is already under way across the whole of government to follow up on the inquiry's findings. Most importantly today, we are setting in hand improved packages of care and arrangements for financial support for victims of variant CJD and their families. I commend the inquiry's report to the House."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
3.50 p.m.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement made earlier by her right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture, Nick Brown. We welcome the BSE report and concur with the expressions of gratitude for the work of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Phillips, and his team. On behalf of these Benches, I want to emphasise how deeply I regret the suffering and loss of life of the CJD victims. We are very sorry for the suffering and bereavement experienced by those families. For all their sakes, we must work hard to prevent another such tragedy occurring in the future.
I warmly welcome the Government's acceptance of the need for compensation for the families. We look forward to hearing in due course the details of the Government's proposals. The Minister has said today that the Government will be establishing a new national fund for the care of victims of variant CJD. The hand will ensure a speedy response to diagnosis and improvements in the quality of care for patients. That is truly to be welcomed. We are glad to hear that discussions have already taken place with families. What we need to see is a swift response to their dilemma.
The Phillips report has been almost three years in preparation. It runs to 16 volumes and some 4,000 pages. I am grateful to the Minister and to the Government for allowing us the opportunity to see a copy of the report earlier today. Obviously, we have had time only to study it briefly. The Government are entirely right in not rushing to make a substantive response to the report. I am sure the House understands that at this stage I cannot try to comment on the many details and recommendations in the report. We will wait until we have all had the opportunity to read the report and the Government's response to the report before a full debate is arranged.
The Minister and the inquiry have already recognised that we are considering this whole issue with the enormous benefit of hindsight. The Minister referred to that. Before rushing into judgment on the actions of civil servants, many of whom are not in a position to answer for themselves in public, other advisers and Ministers, we must bear in mind the state of knowledge about BSE at the time the decisions now being scrutinised were made. Therefore, I welcome the Minister's announcement in that regard.
494
In the light of the Statement, perhaps I may ask five questions. First, does the Minister agree that all decisions must be based on the best available scientific advice? Does she consider that such advice was available at the time of the events considered in the report? Secondly, does the noble Baroness agree with the report that communications within and between departments and the various advisory groups were inadequate and led to misunderstandings and delay? Thirdly, does she agree with the report that the origin of the disease is still not absolutely certain and perhaps never will be certain? Fourthly, does she agree with the report that it was not MAFF's policy to lean in favour of agricultural producers to the detriment of consumers? Lastly, while our thoughts are first and foremost with the families afflicted by this great tragedy, does the Minister accept that it has had a huge impact on our farming community and that the whole industry has also been devastated?
I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement.
3.55 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement and welcome the package of measures for the victims and their families. I thank her for making clear that the timescale for dealing with the issues raised by the report is the foremost priority. I hope that the House will have a chance to debate at the earliest opportunity all the extremely important issues raised in the report. Members of this House will particularly wish to examine the way in which the report highlights a culture of inappropriate structures and a climate of secrecy and of not trusting the public. Those factors lay very much at the base of the lack of advice given. Although the Minister said that the government did not lie to the public—we accept that—they ran a campaign of reassurance that beef was safe o eat. Therefore, the blame rests not so much on individuals as on a climate of secrecy. We must ensure that that climate of secrecy is not allowed to continue.
Given the conclusion of the report that advice should normally be made public, can the Minister say how the public will know if advice is not made public? That is at the heart of the worry of many noble Lords on the Liberal Democrat Benches about the Freedom of Information Bill. If advice is not made public, we simply will not know.
Does the Minister agree that scientific research and knowledge should be shared? Perhaps one of the strongest statements in the report is that an advisory committee should not water down its formulated assessment of risk out of anxiety not to cause public alarm. How will the Government deal with that issue? As dealing with hazard is such a politically hot potato, do they accept that there needs to be a structured method of risk assessment, risk management and risk communication?
The other striking issue that comes over from the report is the length of time that passed before action was taken. In 1988 there were reports of transmission to other species, particularly mice, and mechanically

495
recovered meat feedstuffs began to be restricted. There was then an eight-year gap before very much action was taken. With that in mind, will compensation for victims and their families be examined by the Government in the light of what was said in the Southwood report on the feeding of animal protein to herbivores? The report stated:
"We believe that the inevitable risks are such that it would be prudent to change agricultural practice so as to eliminate these novel pathways for pathogens".
Given the fact that agriculture has been brought to its knees by this crisis, do the Government intend to review compensation payments for those livestock farmers who did not understand, of were not told of, the findings of that report?
We welcome a full debate on the Phillips report. We look forward to hearing more detail about the amount of funding that will be made available for research in areas that cause the public great concern—organophosphates, GM foodstuffs, and so on. The public should be given as much government information as possible.
4 p.m.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Baronesses for expressing their welcome for the Statement and in particular their welcome for the compensation and care package to be made to the families concerned, in recognition that they have paid the highest price for this tragedy. As I said earlier, we shall examine and refine the detail of the compensation and care package with the families.
Perhaps I may respond first to a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Byford. Everyone would agree that we need to have the best scientific advice available. If difficulties arise from that—it is a point that noble Lords in this House have mentioned on other occasions—we must bear in mind that there is no such thing as "the science"; namely, a scientific decision that is unchanging and unmoving. For myself, one of the lessons to be learnt from this is that it is necessary to be willing to expose uncertainties and to air balances of evidence and the consequent judgments that are made. Certain parts of the report make it clear that the campaign of reassurance, as it was described, has been criticised. That criticism has been levelled not because the campaign was launched with any malevolent intention, but rather because it was inappropriate to withhold from others the fact that dissenting views were expressed.
The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, asked about making scientific advice available to the public. I believe that we have moved a great deal on that front. Many committees, such as the Veterinary Products Committee and the Advisory Committee on Pesticides, publish their findings. SEAC makes public its agendas and minutes and holds press conferences. Perhaps it will reassure the noble Baroness as regards the point she made on freedom of information if I mention that the Food Standards Agency has a right enshrined in statute to make available its own advice to Ministers, regardless of whether Ministers want that
496
advice made public. That is extremely important and provides an illustration of how this Government have attempted to put consumer interests at the heart of government policy making. For example, the review of BSE controls currently being undertaken by the Food Standards Agency is being carried out openly, with public meetings.
The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, asked whether I could agree with her on certain conclusions of the report. I hope that I have made it clear that today the Government do not believe that it is right to publish their response to the conclusions of the report or to the recommendations, which have taken the form of lessons to be learnt. Those run to something in the order of 200. To pick and choose specific examples on this occasion would not be appropriate. The noble Baroness will forgive me if I do not respond to individual questions as regards whether the Government agree with individual conclusions.
Furthermore, the noble Baroness is right to counsel the House not to rush in its judgment or to assume too much in terms of criticism. On the other hand, I was glad to hear that in another place Mr Tim Yeo accepted certain criticisms and publicly voiced his recognition that the last government had made mistakes. The report makes sobering reading for anyone in government. Any individual who holds the responsibilities of political office will need to read the report very carefully and then look to his or her own actions, culture and ability to work with colleagues. But of course—and inevitably—the report will make the most sobering reading for those who were involved in the tragic events now under consideration.
4.4 p.m.
Lord Jopling: My Lords, I thank the Minister for the Statement. As one who, when in office, was never informed of the existence of BSE, but left the department within a few days of Ministers being told of it, perhaps I may say that the words in the Statement declaring that it was not MAFF's policy to lean in favour of the agricultural producers to the detriment of the consumer will be received by many who have held office in that department—from both parties—with some degree of satisfaction. I believe that that was the way in which we all tried to run the department.
Furthermore, in the light of her own experience as a Minister, does the noble Baroness agree that a Minister is at maximum risk of making a total fool of himself if he rejects or overrides advice from either scientists or lawyers when he is neither a scientist nor a lawyer? Quite understandably, most Ministers are very reluctant indeed to override such advice.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, many risks attach to the office of Minister. I am not sure that that is the greatest risk that can be taken. However, the report enjoins Ministers to reflect on whether it is appropriate, not to second-guess scientific advice, but to shelter behind it and not to recognise that, ultimately, policy responsibility goes wider than simply taking scientific advice. Certain areas of the report reflect on the need to recognise the realities of

497
implementation and the need to formulate policy that is firmly based on scientific advice. While I agree that there is enormous risk—I have said as much at this Dispatch Box—in interposing one's lay judgment against the advice of scientific experts, the noble Lord has asked me for my personal opinion and I shall respond by saying that it is not something that I would counsel.
Equally, however, the report makes it clear that we shall all need to reflect on the need to incorporate the best scientific advice into policy making, but not to use scientific advisory committees as ciphers or alternatives to political responsibility.
Lord Harrison: My Lords, perhaps I may invite my noble friend to comment on the 50 per cent compensation scheme which, as she will recall, operated for some two years before the previous government then instituted the 100 per cent compensation scheme. Will she acknowledge that that scheme had the perverse effect of encouraging farmers to get rid of vulnerable animals by moving them off the farm and thus into the food trade—with all the attendant problems which went with that? Does my noble friend agree that the 50 per cent compensation scheme was short-sighted, risky and introduced a level of vulnerability for the consumer that has proved to be unacceptable to the British people?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, having said to the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, that I would not attempt to give the Government's response to individual points, I must be even-handed in dealing with my noble friend. However, he is right to say that the issue of compensation is dealt with in the report in terms that include a fair degree of criticism of the delay in introducing a full compulsory slaughter compensation scheme in 1988. I counsel my noble friend to read what the report states about what was a very contentious issue at the time, and which remains so.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, does the Minister agree that large numbers of farmers did their duty and accepted the loss, and turned their animals in for destruction at half price?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, the evidence in the Phillips report—corroborated by the numbers of animals destroyed under the slaughter and compensation scheme—is that that happened.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, as a junior MAFF Minister, I had the honour to serve under two of the most honourable men I know—the right honourable John MacGregor and the right honourable John Selwyn Gummer. BSE was never part of my portfolio and I was not called to give evidence before the commission. However, I obviously was present at some of the discussions and I obviously answered questions from that Dispatch Box, as the Minister is doing now. As my noble friend said, politicians are not scientists; all they can do is to repeat
498
the best information they can obtain from the best available sources. To my certain knowledge, that is what those Ministers did.
I greatly resent criticisms in the press and elsewhere that the two Ministers I have named could have done other than what they did when faced with a unique and totally unknown situation, the enormity of which only became obvious with the passage of time. With something as large and unknown as the BSE situation, is there not a difficulty for Ministers in deciding between scaremongering and dealing with the matter as sensibly as they can?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, the noble Baroness is always robust in her description of the public service values she experienced while she was in the ministry. She is of course right to point out that people were dealing with an extremely difficult and unclear situation. There is no accusation of dishonourable conduct.
The report states that the Government did not lie to the public about BSE. They believed that the risks posed by BSE to humans were remote. The Government were pre-occupied with preventing an over-alarmist reaction to BSE because they believed that the risk was remote. It is now clear that this campaign of reassurance was a mistake. Beyond the issue of acting honourably, we have to ask how the situation arose over all those years; we have to ask how all the failures in the response, which are catalogued in the report, happened without malevolence. The report states that there were no villains and no scapegoats. In some ways it would be easier if there were a simple, single villain. In the absence of that, a more difficult question for all of us is how such terrible and tragic mistakes could still be made.
Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, while there was a serious failure, there was a response—a sweeping, costly and serious response—to which some of our European partners paid remarkably little heed. Is my noble friend surprised that in recent times the incidence of BSE in some of our neighbouring countries seems remarkably small? Despite that, we had the farce in Paris a few days ago. Can my noble friend assure the House that the United Kingdom Government will pay particular attention to the way in which the rest of Europe responds to the problem? If it fails to respond properly, sweeping problems could arise elsewhere.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, as I said in the Statement, copies of the report are being sent to all member states and to the Commission. It is to be hoped that they will learn from it. The issue of the safety of imported beef is being addressed by the Food Standards Agency, which is looking at the matter in its current review of BSE controls. Earlier this year in Brussels, specified risk material removal rules were agreed and harmonised across the EU to ensure the safety of all EU beef. It is important that the report is understood across the Community and further afield, not only in relation to BSE and the safety of beef but

499
equally in relation to other areas which might be analogous. We do not know what the next problem might be. There are disciplines to be learnt in regard to risk evaluation, risk management and risk communication which go wider than this single issue.
Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior: My Lords, the whole House will welcome a full debate on the report. The disease is very slow to yield up its secrets, and there are still many to be yielded up. Does the Minister agree that, despite the inaccurate and ungenerous hyperbole about BSE and the way the situation was handled, the officials in charge of the inquiry and making decisions were, in large part, acting in good faith and within the means and manpower that they had at their disposal? They were dealing with a new disease about which, at the time, we knew so little. There are still many lacunae to be filled before we fully understand a disease which has been utterly devastating to livestock production and to the families whose relatives have suffered from CJD.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I made clear in my quotations from the report's executive summary the conclusions that Lord Phillips had drawn about the way in which the majority of those involved had dealt with the issues that confronted them. There is praise for many people for the way in which they responded; and some of those who are criticised are also praised. The telling point he makes is that those who were the most active workers in this field were equally the most likely to make mistakes.
However, we cannot simply ignore the fact that the structures, the culture, the implementation of decisions, the use of scientific advice and the communication to the public could have been, and should have been, better, as indicated at various points throughout the report.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I join with others in welcoming the setting-up of the national care fund, the new package of care for patients with CJD and the proposals to set up a compensation scheme. Can the Minister confirm that eligibility for these schemes will be based purely on a medical diagnosis?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I should not like to deny the noble Lord's premise. I was trying to make clear earlier that, together with the families, we want to look at the most appropriate structure both for the care package and for the compensation. At the moment we are thinking in terms of a trust fund tailored to the circumstances of individual families. I hope that the noble Lord will forgive me, but we think it is appropriate to leave it at that at the moment and to report back on the discussions which will take place with the families as the details of the package emerge.
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, perhaps my noble friend will excuse me for returning to the charges made for the disposal of affected cattle at the time of the BSE crisis. Many people believed that the government at that time
500
were "ripped off" by the large slaughterers and renderers in terms of the prices they charged for disposal. Will my noble friend expand on what the Phillips report says about that?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, the main concerns about charging for disposal arose in relation to the Over Thirty Months Scheme introduced in 1996 and were, therefore, outwith the terms of the Phillips inquiry and are not, I believe, referred to in the report. An NAO report on the costs of the crisis did deal with these issues and there is regular renegotiation of the terms of contracts in this area to ensure value for money.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I declare an interest as having had some cows with BSE—some of my cattle did not have BSE but were destroyed nevertheless. Perhaps I may put two questions to the Minister. It is known that new variant CJD is the human form of BSE, but does the report contain any evidence of a proven—not a possible or even a likely, but a proven—transference from BSE in cattle to CJD in humans? The noble Baroness quoted the report as stating that the manner of infection is not clear. Therefore, there would seem to be some doubt.
My second question is of a far more sensitive nature. The Minister said that 86 people had died from this terrible disease, and we all feel the deepest sympathy for their relatives. Those deaths have taken place over a period of 10 years—eight deaths per year, as compared with 3,000 per year as the result of motor accidents and 30,000 per year from lung cancer. The awful thing is that we all have to die some time; most of us do not look forward to it and we ought to take every conceivable preventive measures. But are the Government right to offer compensation to one sector of people, and with an open cheque? Would it not be better to spend the money on ensuring that people have less chance of catching the disease in future, and that those who do are properly and adequately looked after?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, in response to the noble Earl's last point, these are not either/or questions. It is absolutely appropriate in these extraordinary and terrible circumstances to offer a care and compensation package to the families involved. That is not at the expense of a wide research programme into preventive measures; nor is at the expense of proper regulation and proper safeguards in relation to food safety.
So far as concerns the link between BSE and new variant CJD, as part of its remit SEAC reviews emerging scientific data on a regular basis. It has considered the results of a number of separate experiments and has concluded that new variant CJD is an acquired prion disease caused by exposure to BSE or a BSE-like agent. The research does not provide information into other aspects of the disease, such as the route of exposure. The noble Earl is right: the route of transmission is not known for certain. It possibly never will be. However, it is believed that the most

501
likely route is through food. As I said in repeating the Statement, the Government have decided to commission a study of the current state of understanding which will be considered by SEAC and published.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, am I right in thinking that, until comparatively recently, there was no means of diagnosing new variant CJD until a patient had died? Now, there clearly is a means of earlier diagnosis, as is confirmed by the paragraphs in the report on compensation. Did that slow up the realisation that there was a link between the two diseases? I recall, from the first contact I had with a family whose young son developed the disease, that it was not known what the disease was until after his death. Did that slow up the process in working out a connection?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I think that the main obstacle to working out a connection was the long incubation period of human TSEs, which means that it is extremely difficult to make the connection. Even now, there are no easy diagnostic tools. There is no satisfactory blood test, either for animals or for human beings. That makes for extreme difficulty on a number of fronts. That is why one of the research priorities is still to find an effective blood test in order to discover the disease.

Transport Bill
4.26 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 1 [Secretary of State's general duty]:
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Lord Macdonald of Tradeston)The Minister of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Lord Macdonald of Tradeston) moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 10, at beginning insert—
("(A1) The Secretary of State must exercise his functions under this Chapter so as to maintain a high standard of safety in the provision of air traffic services; and that duty is to have priority over the application of subsections (1) to (4).").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, these amendments all relate to safety. Noble Lords will recall the eloquent arguments put forward in Committee by the noble Lords, Lord Brett, Lord Clinton-Davis and Lord Hoyle, as well as by the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, and others. As a result, I agreed to consider again the case for putting additional reassurance on the face of the Bill about the leading role of safety.
These amendments do precisely that. Their effect will be to oblige the Secretary of State, the CAA and the Competition Commission, when exercising their functions under the Bill, to ensure that a high standard of safety is maintained before taking into account any other consideration.
Let me make it clear what "maintaining a high standard of safety" will mean in practice. It means that when the Secretary of State, the CAA and the commission exercise their functions, they must
502
consider the safety standards in place at the time and ensure that those standards will not be reduced as a result of their exercising those functions.
This means that safety levels cannot be compromised, even if they are above the statutory minimum, as is the case in some areas of NATS' operations. I know that the latter point was a matter of concern for noble Lords, and I hope that this clear commitment to safety above all other factors in the Bill provides them with the reassurance that they sought. I hope that it will also reassure noble Lords that we are as concerned as they are to ensure that NATS will continue to strive for the highest standards of safety, rather than simply settling for the minimum.
I listened to noble Lords in Committee and agreed that safety should clearly be the first priority in this part of the Bill. These amendments put that beyond any doubt and I commend them to the House. I beg to move.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, let me say from these Benches how much we welcome the government amendments. I spoke to our amendments in Committee and specifically asked the Minister whether he could put a safety amendment at the front of the Bill. That is what he has managed to do. We are grateful for this improvement in the Bill as it stands.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Brett: My Lords, I echo the gratitude to my noble friend the Minister for proposing these amendments. They go a long way to meeting the objectives of the amendments tabled in Committee. Speaking for the Government on Second Reading, my noble friend Lord Whitty said:
"Safety in our regime will be paramount".—[Official Report, 5/6/00; col. 1026.]
We have sought both in Committee and in discussions outside the Chamber to establish how we get that "paramount" assurance into the Bill. Alas, we understand that that word is not a legally acceptable parliamentary term, but we accept that the wording of this amendment does in fact mean the same thing. We are grateful for the assurance given by my noble friend the Minster. I should like to express my appreciation and that of my colleagues for the way in which my noble friend has taken the matter on board. It will be a matter of some reassurance to those in the industry, especially the staff.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, as one of those who raised the issue in this place, I, too, am obliged to the Minister for referring to me and to the noble Lord, Lord Hoyle. However, as the Minister knows, I wish that the Government had come to another conclusion. But having regard to what are the parameters of the Government's thoughts on the matter, I accept that the noble Lord has done all that he can in relation to the issue of safety. It is only right and proper that the issue of safety, which is a concern of the public, is recognised. That is what the amendment will achieve and what the Bill, as drafted, did not properly address.

503
Like the noble Lord who preceded me, I am grateful for the changes that the Government have made. It is an example of the Minister listening. I do not think that he listened with both ears open, but one-and-three-quarters is better than none. That being the case, I thank the Minister for the concession that he has made. However, that is not to say that we are entirely satisfied about the remainder of the Bill.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I was not present during most of the Committee stage, so it is possible that my point may already have been addressed. Can the Minister tell the House whether the word "safety" for the purposes of these amendments relates not only to the obvious need to protect passengers, crew and those on the ground from accidents, but also to protecting passengers from the risks to their health—and, sometimes, their lives—arising from excessive crowding and inadequate oxygen and humidity in passenger cabins? Is it not a disgrace that airlines are still permitted to provide a seat pitch of as little as 26 inches in economy class? No adult should be expected to fly in such dangerously crowded conditions. Indeed, I submit that 29 inches for short flights, 31 inches for medium-length flights and 34 inches for long-distance flights should be the absolute minimum.
Lord Hoyle: I do not believe that the noble Lord's point is covered under this Bill. However, it is a matter that we ought to consider and perhaps we may do so at another time. I, too, join other noble Lords in paying tribute to my noble friend the Minister for the way that he has dealt with the matter of safety. We should have preferred to see the word "paramount" included in this provision; indeed, my noble friend the Minister used it in Committee. Nevertheless, he has gone as far as he possibly can. I, for one, am satisfied that safety, as it says in the amendment, will have priority over other measures. That is most important. I cannot stress too strongly how much we appreciated not only my noble friend's courtesy in receiving us but also the way in which he acted on this matter.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, noble Lords on this side of the House welcome the fact that the Minister has put forward such amendments today. When I spoke on the issue in Committee, I said that safety was the raison d'être—the entire reason—for National Air Traffic Services. Therefore, it is extremely welcome to have measures on the face of the Bill which, as the Minister said, put a duty not only on the Secretary of State but also on the Civil Aviation Authority and the Competition Commission.
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, I am grateful for the supportive words we have received for this amendment. I apologise for having used the word "paramount", which I know some noble Lords wish to see employed here. It is rather arcane. Although it has been used elsewhere—for example, in Section 1 of the Children Act 1989—it was brought to my attention that the context was different. Indeed, the
504
parliamentary draftsman says that the word is used in that legislation for the section that describes the single objective that is to guide the court in deciding what to do when making an order relating to the future of a child. Therefore, it would not be appropriate here. However, I am assured that maintaining a high standard of safety in the way phrased in the amendment will achieve all the purposes sought by noble Lords.
I should tell the noble Lord, Lord Monson, who raised the point about conditions inside aircraft, that that is, as has been suggested, more a matter for the CAA and perhaps better dealt with at some other time. Noble Lords should be assured that a consultative document dealing with all those issues is due to be issued from my department in the very near future. That will allow noble Lords to address such points at a future date.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 2:
Page1, line 17, at end insert—
("( )to prevent or minimise noise, vibration, pollution (including light pollution), disturbance or environmental damage of any nature;").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 29 to 33, which deal in general with environmental matters. Clause 1 obliges the Secretary of State to exercise his functions under Chapter 1 in the manner best calculated to promote the purposes set out in Clause 1(1). Those purposes do not include protection of those affected by the adverse environmental consequences of air traffic.
My amendment adds to those purposes the prevention or minimisation of noise, vibration, pollution, disturbance and environmental damage. That is partly recognised by Clause 39 of the Bill, which gives the Secretary of State power to give directions on such environmental matters. But as the Bill now stands, he could not exercise that power if it were to conflict in any way with the duties set out in Clause 1. This will limit unnecessarily the Secretary of State's ability to act on environmental matters. The duties set out in Clause 1(1) should therefore include consideration of such environmental issues to ensure that they can be given proper weight.
When I moved a similar amendment in Committee, the Government's response was to fall back on the provisions in Clause 39. I submit that that is a weak response and one that lacks logic. Clause 39 gives the Secretary of State the power to make directions on environmental matters, but because of Clause 1 that power cannot be exercised unless it promotes the interests set out in subsection (1)(a); namely, those of owners and operators of aircraft and airports, air travellers and transporters, financing by licence holders and their efficiency and economy.
Because environmental factors largely affect people living near airports and under flight paths, rather than owners and operators of aircraft and the other interested parties that I have just mentioned, an

505
exercise of the Secretary of State's powers under Clause 39 may conflict with the interests set out in subsection (1)(a). If the Secretary of State attempts to issue directions under Clause 39, he may find himself the victim of judicial review on the basis that he "must", under Clause (1)(a), give priority to owners and operators of aircraft and airports, and so on.
I believe that the Government's refusal to take this simple point on board—and their late insertion of Clause 39 into the Bill—suggests that their commitment to environmental issues is more apparent than real; indeed, it is not as strong as it should be.
I turn now to the other three amendments in this group which all relate to Clause 39. This clause enables the Secretary of State to give directions relating to the environment. The amendments would make such directions subject to approval by Parliament. We welcome the addition of these powers because they recognise the importance of ensuring that damage to the environment is minimised. However, the powers are extremely wide ranging and the best way to exercise them may be disputed or prove controversial. Issues of this importance are matters into which Parliament as a whole should be allowed an input.
The Government argued again in Committee that environmental directions have been used sparingly in the past and that the Secretary of State must have the flexibility to take a wider view on when environmental matters should take priority over financial expediency.
It may become necessary and, indeed, desirable, with the expansion of air traffic, to use environmental directions more in the future. Having to come to Parliament before using directions does not impair the Secretary of State's flexibility; it just makes its proposed exercise subject to proper democratic scrutiny. The balance between environmental considerations and financial benefits is precisely the kind of issue which could be controversial and is worthy of debate.
As regards the final three amendments in the group, the Government said in Committee that general directions will be made, on which there is no need to consult, and that the appropriate time to consult will be when general directions are translated into particular details. Surely this is the wrong way round. If the Government have given general directions which will be binding on all licence holders, why will they need to give particular directions to individual licence holders? Even if particular directions are needed, it is the general directions which are likely to be more far-ranging and relate to points of principle. It is even more important to consult properly on such points of principle as, if directions incorporating points of principle are misconceived, consultation on particular directions implementing the general directions will not provide any remedy. This would make even the limited consultation exercise envisaged in the Bill something of a sham. I beg to move.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, this group of amendments concerns environmental issues. The
506
first amendment seeks to add an environmental limb to the Secretary of State's duty under Chapter I, the primary purpose of which is to introduce a system of economic regulation into the provision of air traffic services.
The duties of the Secretary of State, as set out in Clause 1, deal with concepts such as efficiency, economy and the financing of activities, and "en-route" air traffic services will be regulated through an operating licence which is in itself an economic construct. Furthermore, Chapter I, which should be read in its entirety, is totally in line with the Government's sustainable development strategy. The environmental pillar is delivered in Clause 39 which provides for the Secretary of State to give directions in relation to environmental matters not only to the licence holder, or holders, but also to persons authorised by exemptions to provide air traffic services. To exercise properly those powers the Secretary of State has to consider the giving of directions to be necessary or expedient to present or deal with issues such as noise. The considerations under Clause 39 are not dissimilar to those proposed by the amendment.
The next five amendments would impose prerequisites to the exercise of the power to give directions. The first would require the Secretary of State to get the approval of Parliament before giving directions under Clause 39. This is a significant departure from the present position, under Sections 6(2)(f) and 72(2) of the Civil Aviation Act 1982, which this clause largely replaces in respect of air traffic service providers. The procedure envisaged here would, I think, be the affirmative resolution procedure involving debates in both Houses.
We see no need or justification for this. The power to give environmental directions is long established. In the past, Parliament has been content to leave these matters for the Secretary of State to deal with, not least because he must have the flexibility to take a wide view. One example would be if the provider wished to remove a navigational aid that had residual environmental monitoring benefits. The provisions of this Bill have not altered that position. I suggest again that it would place an unnecessary burden on Parliament if these matters had to be referred to both Houses of Parliament. I would add that the Secretary of State would simply not be able to act in an unreasonable manner. If he were to act in such a fashion, he would be rightly open to judicial challenge.
The remaining amendments concern the provision requiring the Secretary of State to consult before giving a direction under this clause. As presently drafted, the Bill provides that the Secretary of State must consult a licence holder or authorised person regarding a direction to do or not to do a particular thing. The amendments proposed by noble Lords opposite try to ensure that licence holders or authorised persons in the plural are consulted where they are affected by a proposed direction. The fact of the matter is that we simply do not envisage issuing such a specific direction to more than one licence holder or authorised person. If such a situation did in

507
the future arise, we would expect to issue separate directions and therefore any licence holder or authorised person would indeed be consulted. I hope that I have made clear why we regard the amendments as unnecessary. In the circumstances I invite the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for the detailed explanation he has given for not wishing to accept the amendments. I am not entirely convinced that it would not be better to have parliamentary approval in some form or another, not necessarily perhaps by affirmative resolution procedure, as I proposed in one of the amendments. I am also grateful for his comments on consultation and on directions to individual licence holders. Having said that, I shall obviously need to read with care in Hansard what the noble Lord said. In the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston Lord Macdonald of Tradeston moved Amendments Nos. 3 to 6:
Page 1, leave out lines 18 to 20.
Page 1, line 21, leave out from beginning to ("interests") in line 24 and insert ("The only interests to be considered under subsection (1)(a) are").
Page 2, line 3, leave out from ("must") to ("as") in line 4 and insert ("apply them in the manner he thinks is reasonable having regard to them").
Page 2, line 5, at end insert—
("(4A) The Secretary of State must exercise his functions under this Chapter so as to impose on licence holders the minimum restrictions which are consistent with the exercise of those functions.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to Amendments Nos. 3 to 11 with Amendment No. 1. I beg to move Amendments Nos. 3 to 6.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 2 [CAA's general duty]:
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston Lord Macdonald of Tradeston moved Amendments Nos. 7 to 11:
Page 2, line 8, at beginning insert—
("(A1) The CAA must exercise its functions under this Chapter so as to maintain a high standard of safety in the provision of air traffic services; and that duty is to have priority over the application of subsections (1) to (4).").
Page 2, leave out lines 22 to 24.
Page 2, line 25, leave out from beginning to ("interests") in line 28 and insert ("The only interests to be considered under subsection (1)(a) are").
Page 2, line 35, leave out from beginning to ("as") in line 36 and insert ("apply them in the manner it thinks is reasonable having regard to them").
Page 2, line 36, at end insert—
("(4A) The CAA must exercise its functions under this Chapter so as to impose on licence holders the minimum restrictions which are consistent with the exercise of those functions.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 3 [Restrictions on providing services]:
[Amendment No. 12 not moved.]
Clause 4 [Exemptions]:
[Amendment No. 13 not moved.]
Clause 5 [Licences: general]:
[Amendment No. 14 not moved.]
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood Baroness Thomas of Walliswood moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 4, line 8, leave out from beginning to second ("the") in line 11 and insert ("a not for profit company, formed and registered as a company limited by guarantee under the Companies Act 1985 or").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the purpose of the amendments in this group is the transfer of National Air Traffic Services to a not-for-profit trust in substitution for the Government's proposal of its transfer to a public/private partnership. The principal amendment in the group is Amendment No. 35. This clearly defines the company as one that issues no shares and pays no dividends to its members.
Amendment No. 35, together with Amendment No. 36, also requires that this transfer shall not take place until it has been approved by a resolution of both Houses.
Amendments Nos. 38 to 40, 44 and 45 are consequential. Amendments Nos. 41 and 42 provide for the Secretary of State to be able to modify a scheme before it is laid before Parliament. Amendments Nos. 47 and 48 omit certain sections of Clauses 47 and 48 which are incompatible with our amendments. Amendments Nos. 49, 50, 56 and 63 omit respectively Clauses 49, 50, 51 and 55. Amendment No. 64 adds to Clause 56. Amendments Nos. 68, 69, 71 and 72 amend later clauses accordingly. Finally, Amendments Nos. 58, 59 and 62 amend Clauses 52, 53 and 54 to enable the Secretary of State to make loans to, guarantee the discharge of the financial obligations of, and make grants to a not for profit company to which NATS has been transferred. I have spoken briefly because I dealt with the amendments at greater length in Committee.
During the long passage of the Bill through both Houses we have become, as it were, the standard bearers for an approach to the future character of our National Air Traffic Services which has support far beyond these Benches. Without looking too far backwards I remind the House that the trust model was the option favoured by the Select Committee and by many Members in another place. The advantages of the model are its relative immunity to takeover, the construction of a trust board which would reflect both public and stakeholder interests—airline companies and employees, which are so important—and the ability of the board to raise funds at lower rates of interest.
Today I want to look forward and discuss those arguments which have developed since Committee stage. First, the Minister was very dismissive of NavCanada's ability to satisfy the requirements for reducing operational costs, increasing investment and greater accountability. NavCanada is, of course, the model for what we are putting forward today.
Since Committee stage we have had a report from the noble Lord, Lord Brett, on his visit to Canada which clearly refutes these doubts. NavCanada has substantially reduced its operating costs and increased its investment programme in the past two years, as the 1999 annual report shows. The Canadian Government are entirely satisfied that its economic and safety regulatory regime is adequate to maintain the public interest in safety as well as the financial energy of the trust. Moreover, the airlines seem satisfied with their powers to influence decisions which affect their costs. In other words, a satisfactory balance has been struck between public and private interests.
Secondly, in Committee the Minister made much of the opportunities that would be available to NATS as a PPP to play a part in the air traffic control market of other countries. Yet now we see that the bidders for this PPP include not only foreign-owned suppliers to the air traffic control industry, which must create a conflict of interest, but also several major, national publicly-owned air traffic control organisations. In other words, the PPP will create a market in our air traffic services while protecting those of other countries—Ireland, Germany and Iceland are all bidders—which are all publicly owned.
I am mindful that we are at Report stage and that there are other speakers well able to expand on the points on which I have deliberately touched in general terms. I urge the Government most sincerely and fervently to reconsider their proposals for a PPP even at this late stage. It would be of benefit to them and to the future conduct of air traffic services in this country. I beg to move.
Lord Brett: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, in moving this amendment, for drawing attention to my visit to Canada. I went there because I did not recognise the NavCanada model, which I thought I knew, from the Government's response to the Select Committee report in another place. What I sought to do through interviews with representatives of airlines, with NavCanada itself, with Transport Canada, the sponsoring ministry originating the trust, and with the controllers and engineers, was to understand their experience. I was reassured that my understanding was not awry and that investment had increased to 400 million Canadian dollars. Operating costs had been reduced by 24 million dollars per annum. There were also reduced charges to the airlines of about 225 million dollars per annum. There was also an increase in training of about 200 air traffic control staff.
I also asked how the decision was reached. Originally, there was wide consultation, looking at six models. That was short-listed to three, and finally they decided on the trust model. They had looked at the equivalent of a PPP—they called it a mixed company—but rejected it. The PPP that they sought would have delivered much the same results as those sought here. But they decided that they could do better via a trust model. That has been successful in achieving its ends. It is not as unaccountable as was suggested in
510
another place. It seems to be a model which has enjoyed success and the confidence of the staff and pilots of the Canadian skies and the public at large.
I also discovered that the Canadians had been very concerned about conflicts of interest. We are looking at a new situation. We now know that the number of bidders for the NATS strategic partnership has been reduced from eight to four. As the noble Baroness said, they all have potential conflicts of interest. It is possible that the DTER will have responsibility for ensuring that those conflicts are removed. The list of four could be reduced to a lower number in a matter of weeks or days. Therefore, I echo what the noble Baroness said. Perhaps even at this late stage the Minister would consider a non-profit-making trust model.
I made my report available to all Members of your Lordships' House who had participated at Committee stage. I also made it available to the Minister. A number of noble Lords kindly commented on the report. I understand entirely why my noble friend the Minister has been unable to do so because of the many other pressures on his time, particularly at the present time. Whatever the outcome of this discussion, I hope that the Government will be prepared to look again at a model which I believe will give enhanced confidence to the four groups—I call them the four "P"s—that we have to satisfy. They are the public, the pilots, the practitioners and the various parliaments. During the 10 months of this ongoing debate none of the four "P"s has been entirely satisfied. It is not too late to look again at a model which will ensure that greater confidence is gained more quickly rather than continuing with the Government's present plan.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I speak on behalf of the British Airline Pilots Association, of which I am the president. I have made full disclosure to the House. Any statement that I make in relation to other amendments are dependent on that.
At the very outset my noble friend Lord Brett said that he had visited Canada and seen for himself the operation of the scheme. He is right or wrong. It is incumbent on the Minister today to satisfy the House that the Canadian scheme has no application in this country. He has not done that so far. I am not sure about it.
My noble friend the Minister has a duty to provide rather more than that. He has to show that his officials, preferably himself, have been to Canada and repeated the experiment that my noble friend Lord Brett has undertaken. So far the Minister has not done that. He has that duty because this House is concerned about air traffic control. The noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, moved the amendment on the basis that many people are concerned about the issue. That is the case and I speak on behalf of them today. It is not simply the pilots, but a great many people who are concerned about safety.
Bearing in mind that the Minister has not been to Canada himself, he has a duty to inform the House why he is so opposed to the scheme. He may be right.

511
He has to inform the House, not on the basis of what civil servants have advised him, but on what basis he has determined that the Canadian experiment has no relevance to what we are considering today. I do not think that he can.
5 p.m.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, I am somewhat cautious about copying schemes from other countries. After all, other countries have different cultures and circumstances. Those schemes can be adapted but, if we have schemes in this country with which we are familiar, they should take priority in our consideration.
I quite like public/private partnerships. We are operating them in other parts of the economy: in health, in hospitals; and in construction with housing. It is a formula which has been developed in this country. It gives us access to private sector finance in a way that is acceptable. We have also developed ways of regulating public/private partnerships.
I am a little concerned about not-for-profit companies. Over many years in business I have learnt that profit is a great incentive to efficiency, effectiveness and to meeting the needs of customers. I hope that the Minister will give some consideration to these matters. I am not entirely sold on the copying of the formula from Canada.
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, I rise to speak because if I had not done so my noble friend Lord Haskel would have forced me to my feet. I respect him as a business person but I was somewhat amazed at his remarks today. As regards air traffic control, there is concern about one issue—safety. For the life of me I cannot understand how safety is enhanced by profit determination: that there must be profits and safety must suffer because of that. I ask my noble friend to think again. We are talking in this instance about safety.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that safety is not entirely the prerogative of the public sector? Safety is also very important, and is maintained, in the private sector.
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, it is indeed. But my noble friend will agree that there are many cowboy firms in the private sector. The public sector is at least accountable with regard to the standards which should be acceptable to all of us. It is ironic that these remarks are made at a time when we have seen the failure of privatisation on the railways. We have heard of the damaged track which has cost lives. Can my noble friend imagine what would happen if aircraft began to fall from the skies following our determination on this issue? Safety is uppermost in the minds of the public.
I ask the Minister to reflect on that point when he replies. We should at least think carefully before we go down the path advocated in particular with regard to the bidders. All are flawed. All have a conflict of
512
interest. I refer, for instance, to the airlines. I am attracted more to the airlines bid than to the others—and the airlines bid is not conceived on the basis of profit. Safety of customers is paramount in the minds of the airlines. As regards efficiency, they are interested in reducing the costs charged to them. But in relation to the consortium, foreign airlines flying in might think that preference would be given—
Lord Hughes of Woodside: My Lords, if my noble friend will forgive me, perhaps I may intervene. I seem to be missing part of the argument. I thought that airlines were private companies.
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, we are referring to an airline consortium which includes a public sector in the Irish Government's control. I am saying that it is a no-profit trust model. I think that would be of concern to my noble friend Lord Hughes of Woodside. I shall be surprised if he does not believe that safety should be paramount and that profit should not be one of the major consideration in any trust set up. That is what I sought to say in relation to the airlines. But there is a public sector partner and it seems strange to me that we are going outside for public sector partners—to New Zealand, and with regard to the airlines to Ireland—and yet are taking our air traffic controls out of the public sector.
I cannot believe that Lockheed Martin is a serious consideration. Not only is there conflict of interest because it is a manufacturer; it is also responsible for the new air traffic centre at Swanwick being delayed for six years. What will it bring to the table?
The same consideration applies to Raytheon. There is a conflict of interest because it is a supplier of equipment. Even worse, if it came in what about Lockheed Martin's system which should have been operating at Swanwick? It is planned for Scotland. There would be obvious conflict of interest there. Lockheed Martin would not allow Raytheon to use its data and would not supply it. Raytheon would have to bring in its own system which would further delay the advances made.
Serco has a small amount of operational knowledge; it deals only with small airports. It has withdrawn from Liverpool airport. I should like to know why Serco is being considered.
Perhaps I may refer to what has been said. We all owe a debt of gratitude to my noble friend Lord Brett for going to Canada to see what was happening on the ground rather than accepting what the Civil Service told us. It is often better to see for one's self what is occurring. Before his departure it was said that the airlines bear full financial risk without being in a position to manage that risk. On examination, the airlines exert substantial influence in the NavCanada model. They have five directors on the board. They believe that improved safety and investment performance has resulted. The bondholders are taking the risk, not the airlines.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, perhaps I should have made this point myself. Perhaps my noble friend

513
will explain why a former Labour government of approximately five years and three months did not take any action in this regard. Is it not a fact that that Labour government considered that NATS performed well? Is there any evidence that NATS has failed to perform up to standard in the 20 years since that Labour government ceased to be in office?
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, as my noble friend will understand, it is for the Minister to reply. Like my noble friend I am puzzled because I had thought that the safety standards set by NATS are second to none not only in this country but throughout the world.
It was also said that NavCanada is not responsible to anyone. Again that statement is not true because the Canadian Government have a great deal of control over it. There is a right to call it in; there is a right to check it. If one considers what has happened in relation to the NavCanada model, not only has safety improved but efficiency has improved and costs to the airlines reduced. New air traffic controllers have been recruited and are being trained.
A lot of that relevant information would not be before us if my noble friend Lord Brett had not undertaken his mission to Canada. My noble friend the Minister has said that safety should be uppermost. Why put the whole thing at risk by going forward with any of the four bidders, all of which are flawed in one way or another? Surely it is time to consider again setting up a trust model. I accept that it does not have to follow the Canadian model exactly, but it should be a non-profit-making trust. That would mean that safety was paramount. That is why I ask my noble friend to give the matter more thought.
Lord Roll of Ipsden: My Lords, I shall not detain the House by repeating the many excellent arguments that have already been made for the amendment. I simply remind the Government of a very good American saying, usually attributed to Harry Truman: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it".
Lord Smith of Clifton: My Lords, in speaking to Amendments Nos. 34 and 35 and the associated amendments, I return to an important point that I made in Committee, because I have not yet had an adequate answer from the Government. I refer to the relative costs of the proposed PPP scheme and the public trust scheme that we advocate.
The Secretary of State has estimated that NATS will require £1.3 billion of investment over the next 10 years. As I have previously pointed out, the cheapest way would be for the Chancellor to fund that. Since he has declined that option, the next best way is to form a public trust along the lines of NavCanada to raise the necessary funds on the money market. Given its guaranteed income flow, it would attract the highest security rating and could thus borrow at the cheapest rates. Lower interest rates would mean lower costs to the airlines and passengers alike, as NavCanada has achieved.
514
That would be much cheaper than selling half the equity shares in a privatised NATS, as the Government intend. Why are the Government hell bent on pursuing such an expensive method? Why should the public be fleeced in that way?
Unprecedentedly, the National Audit Office has initiated a detailed examination of the Government's proposed PPP for the London Underground. The NAO is particularly examining its value for money relative to other options and its safety implications. If prior NAO scrutiny is deemed necessary for the Government's plans for part-privatisation of the London Underground, why are the Government not submitting similar plans for the part-privatisation of NATS? It would be just as appropriate and just as crucial on cost and safety grounds.
I hope that the Minister will be able to give a considered response to that important question. We believe on all counts that the public trust proposal for air traffic control remains the best option, as the noble Lord, Lord Brett, has demonstrated.
Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen: My Lords, I had not intended to speak in the debate, but when words such as "trust", "profit" and "safety" were used, I felt that I should. Until 30th September, I was a health and safety commissioner. We often looked at reports of cases in which health and safety had been endangered. Time after time, profit was the reason for safety precautions being cut. The admirable idea of a not-for-profit trust should be accepted.
5.15 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, can the Minister cite one case in which the private sector has delivered safety without the benefit of competition?
Lord Elder: My Lords, I fear that there are still some doubts about the ability of the private sector to be involved in any process that has safety at its heart. That fundamental fear is tainting some of the views that have been expressed. I do not accept that the private sector is incompatible with the provision of safety, so I do not approach the issue feeling that there is a need to exclude the private sector from the equation or to constrain its impact.
The Bill faces up to the need to add first-class project management skills to the real operational expertise of NATS. That has consequences.
I have not had the benefit of a trip to Canada—or at least, not to look at air traffic systems. I have three brief points to make about what we have heard. First, the situation in Canada is very stable. There has been a lot of investment and the situation is being managed. We need enormous new investment. I do not believe that it is appropriate to raise such sums without some equity.
Secondly, the Canadians do not have the considerable problem of congestion that exists in European and UK air space.
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt, but will my noble friend look at the record of NATS?

515
Whenever it has asked for a loan from the Treasury, it has always repaid it with interest. It is a profitable company. There is no reason that the Treasury could not put up the money. NATS would repay it. We all know that we are awash with money at the moment.
Lord Elder: My Lords, if we added up all the things that people say that we could spend money on because we are awash with it, we would soon be in the position that we were in under the previous administration, when borrowing was going up sharply and we were far from awash with money. That is not a sensible basis on which to proceed.
Canada is not a congested country and does not have to face up to the difficulties that we have. The proposed structure for the board of a trust is similar to the current structure at the BBC. Over the past 20 or 25 years, that structure has not had sufficient sharpness or dynamism to enable the BBC to deal with sharp competitive intrusion into its market. It is all very well for managing something—in the case of the BBC, managing the decline in its control over world broadcasting—
Lord Brett: My Lords, will my noble friend explain where the competition is in air traffic control? It is a natural monopoly of the air over our country. I do not accept the analogy with the BBC's competition from independent or satellite television.
Lord Elder: My Lords, the issue is how to get a sharp, competitive body that will have to deal with the massive restructuring that there will be in European air space in the next few years. We are not dealing with a stable or unchanging situation. If we were and there were no possibility of restructuring, I would probably support the proposal, but it would not provide a sufficiently sharp or commercially focused unit that would be able to deal with the restructuring that there will undoubtedly be in Europe. In those circumstances, NATS will certainly lose out. For those reasons, I hope that the amendment will not be accepted.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, it might be help if I briefly set out the views of the Conservative Party on the amendments. I am most grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, for having explained them so ably. As has been said, we also owe a tremendous debt of gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Brett, for having visited Canada—I gather at his own expense, as he said on the radio this morning—and for bringing back a report which I found so interesting. I look forward to hearing the Minister's reply to some of the points where clearly a difference of opinion exists between what the noble Lord, Lord Brett, found in Canada and what we were advised the last time this issue was debated in your Lordships' House.
I am not sure whether the Canadian trust model is the best one. Therefore, if the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, decides to divide the House on this issue, I do not feel able either to support or to vote against the
516
amendment. I believe that that will be music to the ears of a number of noble Lords opposite, not least because on the previous occasion the noble Lord, Lord Hoyle, among others, said that it would be entirely opportunistic for noble Lords on this side of the House to support an amendment when it was quite well known—
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, I said that it would be a marriage made in Hell.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I have the noble Lord's quotation somewhere but I did not intend to extract it at this point. He may well have said that. However, I agree with him about some of the points that he made in relation to the conflict of interest among the bidders for this process. I shall not give a commentary on the four groups involved, but I consider that the noble Lord put forward some well made points.
I believe that it was the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, who said that a raft of people is concerned about this issue. He is right about that. I also agree with the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, that profits are not always bad. I submit that not a single person in aviation could say that British Airways is any less safe since it was privatised and since it has looked, sometimes elusively, for the profit motive.
Lord Brett: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I accept the profitability of British Airways. But is it not curious that the profit-making British Airways is a main mover in a not-for-profit consortium? Obviously it does not view profit as part of air traffic control.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: Yes, my Lords, I agree with that. I said that I did not consider it right to comment on individual groups or to list my favourite bidder, but the noble Lord's point is well known. I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Russell, who said that competition was involved. That is an interesting point. I hope that that clarifies the position from this side of the House.
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, new Clause 35 and its associated amendments seek to restrict the strategic partner to a not-for-profit company. The new clause would also require the Secretary of State to satisfy himself that the company includes representatives of employees and users of aviation, air travel, air navigation and related services.
I assume that one purpose of the new clause is to establish that profit will not be put before safety. However, perhaps I may assure noble Lords that whatever type of strategic partner we select, whatever its nationality and whoever it is, profits will never be put before safety. I believe that that was made clear in the first amendment that we discussed today, which was so warmly welcomed.
This PPP will not jeopardise safety; rather, it is designed to enhance the safety regime for air traffic control. Safety regulation will stay firmly in the public sector in a reformed CAA. The robust public sector

517
regulatory regime will ensure that whatever the status or ownership arrangements for NATS, the company will remain one of the safest air traffic service providers in the world. In short, I do not accept the profit before safety argument and nor should other noble Lords.
Let there be no doubt that we take safety extremely seriously, as we demonstrated earlier today. The additional amendments that we tabled reflect our fundamental and overriding commitment to safety. In any event, I stress again to your Lordships and to my noble friend Lord Hoyle that there is absolutely nothing in this legislation or, indeed, elsewhere that would prevent a viable not-for-profit company from becoming our strategic partner. If such a company can pass all the eligibility criteria, can otherwise be made compatible with our proposals for the PPP, such as shareholdings, and puts forward a good bid, then a not-for-profit group could be the right partner for the Government.
However, in order for us to take a view on that, and for a not-for-profit group to prove that it offers the best future for NATS, there needs to be a competitive process which allows a rational assessment of all the bids that we receive. A not-for-profit bid needs to stand up and be assessed alongside other bids. Limiting the selection criteria to a not-for-profit group would knock out potential candidates who at the end of the day might be better partners.
The second change which the new clause would bring about would be to require the involvement of representatives of employees and users of aviation in the ownership of the company. It is certainly entirely right o assert that such people have a crucial interest in the future of NATS. That is why we devised the innovative stakeholder council. Although not part of the decision-making structure of the company, it will certainly be an influential body whose views will carry considerable weight. In addition, apart from their participation in the council, the employees of NATS will have a 5 per cent stake in our PPP.
The proposed amendment suggests that some noble Lords believe that a trust model such as NavCanada is appropriate for NATS. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, that I do not believe I shall feel the need to go to Canada to examine it carefully. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Brett, for the perseverance that he showed in bringing the Canadian experience to our attention. However, I listened, too, to my noble friend Lord Haskel and note the business experience that he brings to bear when he says that the NavCanada experience may well suit Canadian circumstances but we do not believe that it provides the best solution for air traffic control in the United Kingdom.
A key rationale behind the PPP model is the improvement of NATS project management expertise, along with access to private sector finance, so that NATS can invest successfully in the right technology to meet growing demand safely. We do not believe that NavCanada would meet those needs. In the NavCanada model the airlines clearly have a great
518
interest to ensure that the company is operated commercially. However, in the absence of equity participants, the airlines would bear the financial risk as users of the service. If, for example, an investment project overran its budget through mismanagement, the users would pay higher user charges. Under the PPP model, the economic regime and participation of equity holders mean that the airlines will not have to bear the financial risk. For example, if an investment project overran its budget through mismanagement, through the regulatory regime it would be the equity participants, who are best placed to manage the project, and not the airlines who would shoulder that risk.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord for giving way. Is he saying that British or any other airlines have opposed the Canadian experiment? The logic of that would be that together they would have announced some kind of dérnarche against the Canadian experiment, but, so far as I know, they have not done so.
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords., airlines which have involved themselves in the not-for-profit bid clearly are prepared to take that risk. However, we are discussing how we believe that our PPP might be best founded. I should say that NavCanada itself refers to the setting up of its trust which, incidentally, was followed by a massive reorganisation over the past three years in the form of privatisation. As we have made clear time and time again, we consider complete privatisation to be unacceptable in a service which is as strategic and sensitive as air traffic control.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Brett: My Lords, I am slightly confused. The Minister is concerned about the airlines carrying the risk. But that concern is not only not shared by airlines in this country, which have gathered together to form a not-for-profit consortium, but in Canada the airlines seem to be extremely content with their model, in which the Minister suggests that they have all the risks and none of the controls. So if the airlines on both sides of the Atlantic, which are the main customers, are content, that seems to me to be something that we may want to consider further in terms of that model. The Minister seems to be suggesting that the airlines may be stupid in taking that risk, which they are not. They have found a way of doing this. It is interesting that no airline whatever seems to want to have a for-profit model.
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, I said earlier that I am ready to accept that airlines will be involved in a not-for-profit bid, and that will be judged on all-fours with all the other bids involved. I am simply saying that in the scope that we offer in the competitive processes of the PPP, it will be possible for other strongly founded bids to be brought forward.
My noble friend Lord Hoyle compared the PPP proposal for NATS with that for rail privatisation. There really is no similarity. The railways suffered

519
from many years of under-investment and, by the recent admission of the party opposite, were imperfectly privatised. We are introducing a PPP precisely because we believe that it will secure the finance and management skills to maintain the position of NATS as a world leader in state-of-the-art air traffic control systems.
So it is not a privatisation as practised previously. It is a public/private partnership with a strong role for the Government.
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, I hear what my noble friend says. But is it not true that immediately afterwards the Government shareholding in the company will be diluted? Will that not bring about fresh fears? It may be very unfair, but at a time when rail safety has been put at risk because of privatisation, will not this measure be seen as a partial privatisation by the public? If any accident did occur, however unfair it may be, we should stand condemned if we go down this road.
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, I believe that it is misleading of my noble friend to imply that we intend instantly to dilute the Government's share. We have said that if the company in due course decides to raise more money, and in that way wishes to go out into the marketplace, then we should be prepared to see the Government's share go down from the original 49 per cent. But that would in no way undermine the controls that were exercised on the company. There would simply be a dilution of the share in what might perhaps be a much more valuable company in due course.
If we thought for one moment that there was any read across from the tragic events on the railways last week to our policy for NATS and the PPP, then we should not be asking your Lordships' House to press ahead with that policy. I assure your Lordships that there is no connection between the two.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, asked whether the private sector has delivered safety without the benefit of competition, presumably at any time or at any place. I should have preferred more notice of that question but I should have thought that in de facto terms, if you take the British Airports Authority, which is a de facto monopoly in many areas, that has been run with conspicuous safety since its privatisation.
As regards the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton, the PPP will benefit from a very solid credit rating and will be well able to finance its business in a cost-effective manner. Of course, it comes with other benefits which I have described. I cannot speak for the National Audit Office's work programme but I believe firmly that we can demonstrate that value will be produced by this PPP for the public. I have no doubt that the NAO will make its views known in due course.
I turn now to some of the issues raised by my noble friend Lord Brett. There are some similarities between NavCanada and the PPP. Both clearly provide for a
520
measure of stakeholder scrutiny. The PPP model provides for a good measure of stakeholder scrutiny; for example, through the stakeholder council, about which I spoke earlier, and through the employee shareholding. But because capital is at risk, the scrutiny of shareholders can act more powerfully than that of stakeholders.
The Government therefore believe that shareholder participation will be particularly effective in helping NATS to improve its performance in terms of safety, meeting customer demand and efficiency. Shareholders will also be more inclined to have a view as to the wider interests of the business than might some stakeholders.
In addition, the PPP accountability framework will have a number of features in common with the NavCanada model—government-appointed directors, consultation on charges, safety regulation by a public sector authority and government emergency powers of direction.
But the PPP will benefit also from a direct line of accountability to the owners of the business—the strategic partners, the employees and the government—and that accountability to the owners of the business strengthens the incentives to meet customer needs and improve the performance of the business.
Nor do we believe that the trust or NavCanada model would provide a platform to bring in a committed, world-class strategic partner to inject complementary expertise into NATS' operational skills or that it would provide sufficiently strong incentives to improve its performance.
The final area of doubt relates to the ability of that trust model to compete effectively in what we believe will be a liberalised world market for air traffic control. A trust set-up would lack the motivation, initiative, skills or credibility to compete effectively and thus would deny the United Kingdom a key role in an expanding world market.
Lord Brett: My Lords, if one looks at the four proposed strategic partners, two are major equipment suppliers, one is a management company with some considerable experience of managing swimming baths and light railways. Two of them have an international approach. Would it not be the case that if one of the multinationals were chosen to be the strategic partner and it then formed a partnership in Holland or in another part of the world, it would have precisely the same relationship with that country that it had with NATS in the PPP here? Therefore, it would not see as a priority the expansion of the British interest. We have seen that with dam construction and similar major projects, consortia are created within countries. That would include the strategic partner but it would not include the British Government or the other partners within the PPP. That is my view.
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, I hear what my noble friend says. I do not want to say anything which would in any way prejudice any of the

521
parties which might put themselves forward to compete for the role of strategic partner in NATS. I stress again that among the companies which have come forward there clearly is complementary expertise which we believe would strengthen the company which we are moving to create.
The proposed new clause and its associated amendments are unnecessary and we invite noble Lords to withdraw them. The purpose of the proposed new Clause 36 is to require Parliament to approve a made transfer scheme before it can be put into effect, after a draft has already been approved under new Clause 35.
It also requires the Secretary of State to produce a progress report on the development of NATS' facilities before any secondary legislation can be considered. This new clause and its associated amendments would result in an extremely time-consuming and cumbersome mechanism Proposed schemes will be subject to consultation with those concerned.
They will be designed to achieve the complete separation of regulation from service provision. Double parliamentary approval for each scheme is entirely unprecedented and could jeopardise the PPP timetable.
The requirement for the Secretary of State to produce a report on the development of the facilities connected with National Air Traffic Services is also entirely unnecessary. I assume that that has been inserted in order to place on the face of the legislation some commitment to the Prestwick centre. That commitment will be contained in the strategic partnership agreement and will also be a licence condition. In addition, the Government accepted an amendment in another place which will reinforce these commitments on the face of the legislation. The amendment is now Clause 51(3) of the Bill.
The main purpose of Clause 56 is to ensure that the Secretary of State and the Treasury are not regarded as shadow directors of NATS and its new subsidiaries for the purpose of certain provisions of the Companies Act 1985. The purpose of Amendment No. 66 is to remove that protection.
Shadow directors are persons who have not been appointed to the office of director of a company but who are treated by the Companies Act as de facto directors. The obligations imposed by the Companies Act on shadow directors fall broadly into two categories — those which are intended to reveal to the public the persons who are directing the company from behind the scenes, and those which are intended to protect shareholders from directors taking financial advantage of the company.
As the Secretary of State's interest in NATS and its subsidiaries will be public knowledge, the provisions of the Companies Act are not necessary in the context of the PPP. Removing Clause 56 would expose the Secretary of State to administrative inconvenience in complying with the Companies Act without any corresponding public benefit.
522
In any event, there is precedent for a provision of this nature. Similar provisions are to be found in the Commonwealth Development Corporation Act 1999 and other legislation dealing with government assets.
I have dealt at length with a number of proposals for new clauses and for other amendments to the Bill. For the reasons I have given, I urge noble Lords to reject all the amendments proposed.
Lord Prior: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, perhaps I may ask him to reflect on two points. First, bearing in mind the announcement about BSE today, and all that has been said, can he be certain in his own mind that the advice he has been receiving is what he wishes to do? This is a major issue of safety. He has to be absolutely certain about his own views on the subject and not perhaps pay too much attention to the expert advice he might be given.
Secondly, will the Minister always remember that what originates from the Treasury—I think that the Treasury has quite a lot to do with this—-is not always correct?
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, given his experience both in government and business, I listen to the noble Lord, Lord Prior, with great respect. As I said earlier, we are going forward in the belief that the investment of £1.3 billion, which we believe will be unlocked over the next 10 years, will create a higher and safer platform of technology which will enable air traffic services in the United Kingdom to continue to lead the world in safety, and, indeed, where possible, to export that expertise in safety, not only to Europe but around the world.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. I pay tribute to the large number of speeches in support of our amendment from all sides of the House and, on occasion, from unexpected quarters. We have been debating this amendment for 57 minutes. I shall resist the temptation to rehearse the arguments. I believe that the number of people who spoke on our behalf and on our side of the argument fully justifies my testing the opinion of the House.
5.45 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 15) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 59; Not-Contents, 94.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Dholakia, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Ezra, L.

Avebury, L.

Falkland, V.

Barker, B.

Geraint, L.

Bradshaw, L.

Goodhart, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Greaves, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Hamwee, B.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L

Clement-Jones, L.

Harris of Richmond, B

523

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Roll of Ipsden, L.

Jacobs, L.

Roper, L.

Linklater of Butterstone, B.

Russell, E.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Sandberg, L.

MacLaurin of Knebworth, L.

Scott of Needham Market, B.

McNally, L.

Sharman, L.

Maddock, B.

Sharp of Guiklford, B.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Shore of Stepney, L.

Methuen, L.

Shutt of Greetland, L.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

Smith of Clifton, L. [Teller]

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Swinfen, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Taverne, L.

Naseby, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.[Teller]

Newby, L.

Northover, B.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L.

Tordoff, L.

Phillips of Sudbury, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Razzall, L.

Walmsley, B.

Redesdale, L.

Weatherill, L.

Rennard, L.

Wigoder, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Hunt of Chesterton, L.

Ahmed, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Alli, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord Chancellor)

Amos, B.

Andrews, B.

Islwyn, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.(Lord Privy Seal)

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Bach, L.

Kennedy of The Shaws, B.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Lipsey, L.

Billingham, B.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Blackstone, B.

Longford, E.

Borrie, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Bragg, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller]

Brennan, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

Burlison, L.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Carter, L.[Teller]

Mallalieu, B.

Cocks of Hartdiffe, L.

Marsh, L.

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

Massey of Darwen, B.

David, B.

Molloy, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Morgan, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Peston, L.

Desai, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Donoughue, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Dubs, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Elder, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Filkin, L.

Sewel, L.

Gale, B.

Shepherd, L.

Goudie, B.

Simon, V.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Grabiner, L.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B

Greengross, B.

Tomlinson, L.

Grenfell, L.

Turnberg, L.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Uddin, B.

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Harrison, L.

Walpole, L.

Haskel, L.

Warner, L.

Hayman, B.

Wedderbum of Charlton, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Whitaker, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Whitty, L.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Young of Old Scone, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.55 p.m.
[Amendments Nos. 16 to 18 not moved.]
Clause 8 [Duties of licence holders]:
[Amendment No. 19 not moved.]
Clause 12 [References to Competition Commission]:
[Amendment No. 20 not moved.]
Clause 17 [Commission's duty as to modifications under section 16]:
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston Lord Macdonald of Tradeston moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 12, line 18, at beginning insert—
("(A1) The Competition Commission must exercise its functions under section 16(2) and (3) so as to maintain a high standard of safety in the provision of air traffic services; and that duty is to have priority over the application of subsections (1) to (4).").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston Lord Macdonald of Tradeston moved Amendments Nos. 22 to 26:
Page 12, line 18, leave out ("Competition").
Page 12, leave out lines 33 to 35.
Page 12, line 36, leave out from beginning to ("interests") in line 39 and insert ("The only interests to be considered under subsection (1)(a) are").
Page 12, line 46, leave out from ("must") to ("as") in line 1 on page 13 and insert ("apply them in the manner it thinks is reasonable having regard to them").
Page 13, line 2, at end insert—
("(5) The Commission must exercise its functions under section 16(2) and (3) so as to impose on licence holders the minimum restrictions which are consistent with the exercise of those functions.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to these amendments with Amendment No. 1. With the leave of the House I shall move them en bloc. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 27 [Air traffic administration orders]:
[Amendment No. 27 not moved.]
Clause 38 [Directions in interests of national security etc.]:
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston Lord Macdonald of Tradeston moved Amendment No. 28:
Page 24, line 32, at end insert—
("(3A) In exercising his powers under subsections (1) to (3) the Secretary of State must have regard to the need to maintain a high standard of safety in the provision of air traffic services.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 39 [Directions relating to the environment]:
[Amendments Nos. 29 to 33 not moved.]
Clause 41 [Meaning of transfer scheme]:
[Amendment No. 34 not moved.]
[Amendments Nos. 35 and 36 not moved.]
Clause 43 [Transfer schemes made by CAA]:
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 37:
Page 29, line 8, at end insert—
("( ) No direction to make a transfer scheme shall be given under subsection (1) before the first Session of the next Parliament after that in which this Act is passed.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 37, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 43 and 46. The purpose of these amendments is to delay the coming into effect of a scheme to transfer NATS to a public/private partnership until after the next election.
It must be clear to everyone that the privatization public/private partnership as the Government prefer to call it—is highly controversial. Noble Lords will be glad to know that I do not propose to rehearse all the arguments again that we heard at Second Reading and in Committee in this House, and indeed that we heard on the last amendment on which we have just voted. Nor shall I remind the House once more of the attitude of the Labour Party when in opposition and the famous quotation from the then transport spokesman that ''our air is not for sale".
We heard this afternoon a powerful case for the Canadian trust model, as was said, a model favoured by the Transport Select Committee in another place. An amendment to that effect in another place caused the third largest rebellion so far from the Government Benches there.
In short, there seems to be more than enough controversy in the Government's proposals and such an enormous about-turn from what they were saying before the last election that we believe the electorate should have a chance to see these proposals in the Labour Party Manifesto before the next election.
There is a precedent for this kind of delay. In 1982, during the passage of the Telecommunications Bill, the then Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, now my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding, said,
"but neither the transfer of the assets and obligations to the new company nor the issue of shares to the public will take place before the next general election. We are content that the public should decide whether or not this important step should be taken". — [Official Report, Commons, 29/11/82; col. 39.]
In other words, because the BT privatisation proposals had not been in the manifesto, and because it was then a controversial issue, the Conservative government of the day thought it only right and proper to put the issue before the electorate.
In his Statement on Tuesday to another place on the Hatfield derailment, the Deputy Prime Minister reminded us that in opposition in 1992 he suggested that we did the same with rail privatisation. He said:
"In fact, our argument was that the then Government waited to sell British Telecom until after the election, so they could have done the same with Railtrack".—[Official Report, Commons, 24/10/00; col. 151.]
In other words, the idea of a delay was at that time in the mind of the now Deputy Prime Minister.
The NATS proposal is every bit as controversial as were those relating to BT and Railtrack. But the big difference is that, whereas the BT privatisation was something people would have expected from a
526
Conservative government, the privatisation of NATS is the very last thing anyone would have expected from a Labour Government. That is all the more reason for the proposal to appear in a manifesto before being acted upon.
The Government will no doubt argue that the industry urgently needs the investment. Indeed, there is a need for investment. These amendments do not stop any of the preparations taking place, as they did not with regard to BT. But I believe that the Government plan the PPP to happen by spring next year. Everyone is expecting an election next spring, too, so the delay need be only a couple of months at most.
That is not really the point. The point is that the proposal is controversial and it should be put before the electorate in a manifesto. I beg to move.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down I want to ask him a question. He has argued only that the Government should do nothing precipitate at this stage. Has he considered the alternative to what the Government are suggesting because he has not mentioned one word about it? He has argued only that there should be a delay.
What are the Conservative Party arguing for? It is not for delay but that we should continue with the full privatisation of the NATS. Is that the case.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, procedurally, the Question should be put on my amendment and I shall answer the noble Lord's points when I respond to the debate.
Lord Shore of Stepney: My Lords, with such complicated legislation, it is difficult to keep fully abreast with all the amendments before us. I must confess that when a short time ago I went into the Lobby in support of the Liberal Democrat amendment I thought that it was the only practical alternative to the thoroughly repugnant proposals in the Bill.
However, I had overlooked the excellent suggestion that is now before us. I am much in favour of the status quo; I believe that we have a wholly successful NATS which has a marvellous record of efficiency and safety. It also enjoys full public confidence. It might just be improved by the separation of the CAA as a regulatory body; one which examines it rather than being part of it. Apart from that, the status quo is excellent. Here, we have an amendment which suggests that we maintain the status quo for the next two or three years.
I find the proposal most acceptable for an additional reason which I want to mention to the House. Well within the next few months we shall have a new system for regulating air space in Europe. The common European sky proposals have been nurtured by the Commission during the past year, with all their implications for the control of British air space and of access to our airports by other nations. All of that will become plain and the implications within the new framework of a strategic partner for the United Kingdom will at last become obvious. All the bogus

527
nonsense about being unable to finance our present virtually self-financing system will be put in the dustbin where it belongs.
Therefore, I greatly welcome the amendment. I would not wish to align myself further with the thinking of the Conservative Party on the future of NATS but I welcome the excellent opportunity to have a delaying period in which all will become plain.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I follow my noble friend Lord Shore because I have been invited to repeat what I said in my intervention. It was, frankly, that I do not trust the Tories and I never have. And I do not trust them on this issue in particular. The Tories entertain a belief that they will win the next election. They had better disabuse their minds of that, particularly in the light of today's opinion poll.
Whatever the position of the Tories may be, I come to much the same conclusion as my noble friend Lord Shore. I believe that the Government can do nothing but benefit from a delay. They will not have an opportunity to carry out their proposals before the next general election. It may be May, September or October, but they have no reasonable chance of carrying out their proposals.
Secondly, I do not believe that the Government have any intention of carrying out their proposals. Whatever may be said by the Minister today, the fact is that the Government go through the motions of passing the Bill, as we expected of them, but they do no more than that.
Thirdly, we should carefully test what the skies of Britain need. It may be the European approach, which my noble friend completely discounts. It may be a system which closely resembles the present NATS—I do not know. However, whatever it is, it is entirely acceptable to the Government because I believe that, whatever my noble friend says here tonight, the Government have no intention whatever of doing anything for £1,300 million over 10 years.
That being the case, why does my noble friend get so up-tight about it? There is no reason for it. I entirely dismiss the Tories from this argument because they have no chance of winning the next election. But why is my noble friend so uptight about it? It is not as though the Government somehow pin their hopes on the economic benefits of the scheme. No sensible person believes that. That being so, why does my noble friend use every opportunity in this debate to colour badly that which the opposition on this side of the House proposes?
My noble friend waxed eloquently about the situation in Canada—he may be right or wrong—but one thing we do know is that NATS has served this country well. Does my noble friend dispute that? The main point raised by my noble friend Lord Shore is that over the past 30 years NATS has served the people of this country well. Why should the Government interfere with that?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am president of the Popular Flying Association and am myself an
528
occasional user of airspace services. Therefore, I have a personal interest in this matter in two regards. I am not opposed in principle to privatisation, but the arrangements for continued access to airspace by general aviation are not yet properly in place. While the Civil Aviation Authority is anxious to secure adequate and proper arrangements, there is some very disquieting evidence from senior officials of NATS that they will resist them. I shall deal with that in more detail at a later stage of the Bill.
In the light of those considerations, I believe that it is better to delay the implementation of these provisions, as my noble friend Lord Brabazon proposes. I should like to see these provisions postponed until after the next election. That will give us a delay of perhaps a few months and allow the views of the Civil Aviation Authority in this matter to prevail over those of NATS, which I regard as less than helpful.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, we shall support these amendments should the noble Lord press them to a Division. We do so very much in the same spirit as the noble Lord, Lord Shore, enunciated at the beginning of this brief debate. We are totally against the views of the Conservative Front Bench, whose ultimate aim is the total privatisation of NATS. However, we believe that a pause would be of benefit to the Government in enabling them to think again on the subject. It will ensure that they achieve a structure for NATS which responds not only to the demands for efficiency and so on but those placed upon it by the public. I refer to the safety culture to which the noble Lord, Lord Hoyle, spoke.
Another minor but nevertheless significant consideration is that a pause will give NATS, as it is now, additional time to make progress with modernisation of its technological base and the creation of the new centre at Swanwick. That is undoubtedly needed to meet the timetable of 2002, which is already six years late. That timetable may well be disturbed during the process of the part-privatisation. For those reasons, we shall join the Conservatives today if they decide to press the matter to a Division.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, said, these amendments are intended to defer the making or approval of any transfer schemes until the Session of Parliament following the one in which the Bill before us receives Royal Assent. As the making of transfer schemes is a prerequisite to the establishment of the NATS PPP, this would inevitably lead to delays in the PPP timetable. I am sure noble Lords appreciate that there needs to be a degree of flexibility in the timing of the proposed sale. The necessary legislation (in the form of Part I of this Bill) must be in place so that ownership of NATS can transfer to the Secretary of State, who can then proceed to effect a partial sale. This in itself has acted as a constraint on the speed with which the NATS PPP can come into effect.

529
I believe that the restrictions which noble Lords opposite suggest go too far. They would lead to an unreasonable delay in implementing the transfer scheme provisions, and hence the sale, and I do not believe that that would be in the best interests of the various parties involved. We need to resolve the future of NATS once and for all and put an end to the uncertainty which has been hanging over staff and management for years.
My noble friend Lord Shore referred, with unexpected optimism, to the speed with which a single European sky might be achieved. My understanding of the importance of those proposals is that they would lead to better communication in overly congested airspace in Europe so that it could be managed more effectively. The technology suggests that the dozens of national jurisdictions across Europe could be reduced to five or six. As I have said before in your Lordships' House, in that consolidation lies the opportunity for a strong British company to become a world leader in selling safety and efficiency across Europe and the world. We believe that our PPP is entirely compatible with any likely outcome of the European initiatives that are in place.
My noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis again asks about our commitment to NATS. He suggests that perhaps in some way we disparage its safety record. That is not so. I have congratulated NATS on its very good safety record. The noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, referred to the problems of Swanwick. She might also have referred to the problems arising from investment in Prestwick. It is clear that project management of the kind of investment that we believe is needed in this industry is not best carried out by the structures which have been in place to date.
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for giving way. I said earlier that one of the partners that had been considered was Lockheed Martin, which is more responsible than anyone for delay at Swanwick. Can my noble friend explain how, if Lockheed Martin is successful in this matter, the situation will be improved?
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, I do not want to enter into assertions about responsibility in this case. It is accepted by the management of NATS itself that it does not have the expertise to run these kinds of projects as they should be run and that it is years and years behind in investment. We believe that, if we look to a decade of further investment, that is best achieved with the kind of expertise to be found in the right strategic partners in the private sector. For those reasons, I ask noble Lords to support us in advancing the PPP. I invite noble Lords opposite not to press these amendments.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his reply, although I do not believe that he takes account of what the amendment seeks to achieve. The amendment does not prevent the rest of the legislation passing into law but merely asks the
530
Government to do exactly what we did with British Telecom in 1982; namely, to delay it until such time as it has a mandate from the people.
I am grateful to those who have spoken to and supported the amendment. In particular, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Shore. Whatever happens as a result of this matter, the separation of the regulator (the CAA) from the operator (NATS) is a good thing, and all sides of the House are agreed on that.
The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, asked me at the beginning what we on this side of the House would do. He then went on to say that we had absolutely no chance of winning the next election. Therefore, I am not quite sure why he was so concerned about what we might or might not do. We do not yet know what the outcome will be. We do not know what shape NATS will be in after the Bill is enacted. I can assure noble Lords that our proposals for National Air Traffic Services will be clearly set out in our election manifesto. Those proposals will take into account all the debates which have taken place both in this House and elsewhere on the issue. The noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, assumes that we will go forward with privatisation of NATS. I cannot say that we will; I cannot say that we will not. But I cannot say that the matter is yet decided. The point is that our decision will clearly be set out in our manifesto.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe: My Lords, some of us were listening very carefully to the noble Lord. He will seek, I suspect, to divide the House. We need and require clearer guidance from the noble Lord. It is right and proper that the noble Lord should come out in the open and state where he stands.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, as I said at the beginning of my remarks, we do not know. It depends entirely on what happens to the passage of the Bill. NATS will either go ahead with the PPP or not before the next election. We cannot possibly say at this stage what state NATS will be in at the time of the next election. That is not really the point at issue. The point at issue is that the Government should delay this PPP so that their views and proposals can be put in their manifesto before the next election. The proposals before us today were certainly not in the manifesto for the last election.
As I said in my opening remarks, no one would have believed that the Labour Party would go forward with a privatisation of this kind. I do not intend to go over all the issues of the PPP. Those were more than amply covered in the debate on the previous amendment. It would be a good idea for the Government to delay this matter until after the next election. Therefore, I seek to test the opinion of the House.
6.22 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 37) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 112; Not-Contents, 90.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Ackner, L.

Linklater of Butterstone, B.

Addington, L.

Luke, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Lyell, L.

Ampthill, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Anelay of St Johns, B.

McNally, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Maddock, B.

Attlee, E.

Marand Kellie, E.

Avebury, L.

Marlesford, L.

Baker of Dorking, L.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Barker, B.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B

Biffen, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Blatch, B.

Montrose, D.

Boardman, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Bradshaw, L.

Newby, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Northbrook, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Northesk, E.

Burnham, L. [Teller]

Northover, B.

Buscombe, B.

Norton of Louth, L.

Byford, B.

Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L.

Caithness, E.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Phillips of Sudbury, L.

Clement-Jones, L.

Powell of Bayswater, L.

Colwyn, L.

Razzall, L.

Courtown, E.

Redesdale, L.

Cranborne, V.

Rennard, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Renton, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Dholakia, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Roper, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Russell, E.

Ezra, L.

Scott of Needham Market, B.

Falkland, V.

Seccombe, B.

Ferrers, E.

Sharman, L.

Forsyth of Drumlean, L.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Geddes, L.

Shore of Stepney, L.

Geraint, L.

Shutt of Greetland, L.

Goodhart, L.

Skidelsky, L.

Greaves, L.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Hambro, L.

Stevens of Ludgate, L.

Hamwee, B.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hanham, B.

Strathclyde, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Swinfen, L.

Harris of Richmond, B.

Taverne, L.

Henley, L.[Teller)

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Higgins, L.

Tordoff, L.

Hogg, B.

Trefgarne, L.

Hooper, B.

Trumpington, B.

Howe, E.

Vivian, L.

Hunt of Wirral, L.

Waddington, L.

Jacobs, L.

Walmsley, B.

Jopling, L.

Weatherill, L

Kimball, L.

Wilcox, B.

Kingsland, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Borrie, L.

Alli, L.

Bragg, L.

Amos, B.

Brennan, L.

Andrews, B.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Burlison, L.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Carter, L.[Teller]

Bach, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

David, B.

Billingham, B.

Davies of Coity, L.

Blackstone, B.

Davies of Oldham, L.

532

Desai, L.

McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

Donoughue, L.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Dubs, L.

Marsh, L.

Elder, L.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Morgan, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Nicol, B.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Peston, L.

Filkin, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Gale, B.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Goudie, B.

Prys-Davies, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Grabiner, L.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Greengross, B.

Renwick of Clifton, L.

Grenfell, L.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Sawyer, L.

Harrison, L.

Sewel, L.

Haskel, L.

Shepherd, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Simon, V.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Simpson of Dunkeld, L.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord Chancellor)

Tomlinson, L.

Turnberg, L.

Islwyn, L.

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Warner, L.

Kennedy of The Shaws, B.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Kirkhill, L.

Whitaker, B.

Lipsey, L.

Whitty, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller]

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Young of Old Scone, B.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
6.32 p.m.
Clause 44 [Effect of scheme made by CAA]:
[Amendments Nos. 38 to 42 not moved.]
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 43:
Page 29, line 28, at end insert—
("( ) No approval of a transfer scheme shall be made under subsection (2) before the first Session of the next Parliament after that in which this Act is passed.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 45 [Transfer schemes made by Secretary of State]:
[Amendments Nos. 44 and 45 not moved.]
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 46:
Page 29, line 41, at end insert—
("( ) No transfer scheme shall be made under subsection (2) before the first Session of the next Parliament after that in which this Act is passed.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 47 [Accounting provisions]:
[Amendment No. 47 not moved.]
Clause 48 [Accounting provisions: interpretation]:
[Amendment No. 48 not moved.]
Clause 49 [Issue of securities]:
[Amendment No. 49 not moved.]
Clause 50 [Government investment in securities]:
[Amendment No. 50 not moved.]
Clause 51 [Crown shareholding]:
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Murton of Lindisfarne): My Lords, in calling Amendment No. 51, I should point out that if it is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 52 owing to pre-emption.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 51:
Page 34, line 1, leave out subsections (4) and (5).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 52, 54, 55, 61 and 65 to 67.
These amendments are similar to the ones we moved in Committee. They concern the sale of NATS and the percentages that are to be kept by the various parties. We do not see the logic of including the 49 per cent limit when that can be diluted down as far as 25 per cent. We find that a little difficult. In Committee we suggested that 26 per cent would make more sense as it would at least give the Government the right to block any measure that required a special resolution. The Minister disagreed with that premise. My understanding is that a 25 per cent holding does not enable a shareholder to stop the passing of a special resolution but that a 26 per cent holding does. I should like some clarification from the Minister on that point.
We are also concerned that a disposal should be by means of competitive tender. The identity, competence, honesty and reliability of the private partner are vital to the effective performance of air traffic services, yet the Bill gives the Government carte blanche as to how the partner is selected, a process that could give rise to accusations of cronyism and abuse if the procedure is not transparent and open. That is the purpose of Amendment No. 52.
Amendment No. 54 concerns the designated company's articles of association. There is little point in having rights attached in the articles of association to the golden share unless they include the right to object to any change in those articles. A 25 per cent shareholding would not itself enable the Government to prevent a change in the articles of association without the power to do so being included in the articles of association.
Other amendments in this group are along similar lines. Similar amendments were moved by me at the Committee stage. I do not propose at this stage to go into the detail of all the amendments. Suffice it to say, I shall be interested to hear what the Government have to say to some of the points I have made. I beg to move.
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, Amendment No. 51 would have the effect of removing the obligation of the Secretary of State to hold at least 25 per cent of the ordinary share capital in the designated company and not to dispose of more than 51 per cent. That would remove the Government's current obligation to proceed by establishing a public/private partnership and would instead pave the way for full privatisation. The Government remain
534
convinced that the outright privatisation of NATS to which the previous government were committed would be a mistake.
The Government have considered at great length the other options for the future of air traffic control and the issue has been debated at length. We remain convinced that a public/private partnership is the appropriate solution. Our aim is to facilitate the development of a major British-based company, successfully going out and working in air traffic control in the UK and in countries around the world, and delivering safety for those countries and for the airlines which serve them.
It is the Government's view that the PPP will provide a secure vehicle for the major investment programme—estimated by current management to be in the region of more than £1 billion over the next 10 years—which everyone agrees is essential. That investment will secure the two-centre strategy for NATS. The PPP will achieve that and the Government's interests will be protected by a wide range of measures so that the Government, as a major shareholder, will have to give their consent for any significant actions by the strategic partner. The Government will have the right to appoint a number of non-executive directors to the board of NATS and retain a special share in the company. These partnership arrangements will ensure that the Government can continue to protect the taxpayer's financial interest as a minority investor in NATS and that NATS continues to act in the public interest.
The noble Lord asked about 25 per cent as a blocking share. But what matters here are the terms of the strategic partnership agreement. That document, which governs the relationship with the strategic partner, remains fully effective with 25 per cent. We believe that the PPP will give NATS the freedom it needs in the private sector to invest in the latest systems and safety equipment and to develop the business.
Noble Lords have expressed concerns that the PPP will compromise safety. I hope that they will accept that we have listened to those concerns by tabling the amendments which we debated at the start of today's proceedings. However, perhaps I may stress again that we shall have robust powers through the Bill, through the licensing regime and through the strategic partnership agreement.
As regards Amendment No. 52, Clause 51(4) seeks to ensure that the Crown cannot sell shares in NATS where to do so would result in the Crown holding less than a 49 per cent stake. Amendment No. 52 seeks to impose a further restriction on the Crown selling its shares in NATS by requiring it so to do only by way of competitive tender.
This amendment adds nothing to the protections that are already in place. The Government have always made it plain that they intend, as part of the PPP, to sell down the Crown's stake in NATS to 49 per cent (and it will do so by competitive tender). But I need to make it clear that this does not simply mean selling to the highest bidder. The strategic partner will be selected with a number of criteria in mind, covering

535
safety, national security, management capability and commitment, financial credibility and capacity, quality of strategic planning and satisfactory solutions to any real or potential conflicts of interest. This being so, for so long as Clause 51(4) is in force, the Government will not be able to sell any further shares in NATS, whether by competitive tender or by any other process, and whether to a strategic partner or to anyone else. For that reason, I invite noble Lords to withdraw the amendment.
Amendments Nos. 54 and 65 seek to create a statutory requirement to prevent any change in the designated company's articles of association. I can assure your Lordships that these amendments are unnecessary. It is and always has been the intention of the Government that the PPP company's articles of association will be subject to protection to prevent changes to the key rights, such as the special share. Once enshrined in the articles of association, the special share cannot be removed or changed. Draft articles of association have been laid before this House. If noble Lords care to consult them, they will find that they do include this right. In the circumstances, there is no need to make legislative provision and I invite noble Lords opposite to withdraw these amendments.
Amendment No. 55 seeks to remove the right of the Secretary of State to amend or repeal Clause 51 by order. I can understand the concern of noble Lords that, on the face of it, these powers may seem rather wide-ranging. However, I believe that I can assure noble Lords that adequate safeguards have been put in place. Under the provisions of Clause 102(6) an order under this clause cannot be made without the approval of both Houses of Parliament; in other words, the affirmative resolution procedure will apply.
I should also like to draw the attention of noble Lords to the deliberations of the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation. In its report on the Bill, the committee commented that it did not regard this power as inappropriate and saw the affirmative procedure as providing appropriate control over its use.
I should additionally mention that subsection (12) of Clause 51 is not without precedent. A similar provision has been made in Section 18 of the Commonwealth Development Corporation Act 1999, dealing with matters relating to the minimum Crown shareholding. That section contains a power enabling the Secretary of State to amend or repeal it by order, and again the affirmative resolution procedure will apply.
I hope that noble Lords opposite will accept that proper safeguards have been put in place as regards the use of these powers and I invite them to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment No. 61 tabled by the noble Lord builds on one he tabled during our earlier consideration of the Bill. I appreciate the noble Lord's wish to ensure that Parliament is kept fully informed about sums paid out and received under this guarantee.
536
The amendment suggests that the Secretary of State must disclose the reasons for the default on repayment of sums paid out under the guarantee where he knows the reasons for default, unless he is not permitted so to do because of a duty of confidentiality. Although the Government might be aware of the reasons for the default, there could be circumstances where disclosure could prejudice the Government's ability to recover moneys paid out under guarantee, even where there is not an explicit duty of confidentiality.
The second part of the amendment requires the Government to outline to Parliament any steps they take to recover the sums in question. Again, to reveal such a course of action could place at risk the Government's strategy for recovering the moneys—even if they were under an explicit duty of confidentiality. There may, for example, be a number of competing claims for funds of the company. For the Government to reveal the action they are taking could compromise commercially confidential negotiations and give other creditors an advantage.
I can assure the noble Lord that, in resisting this amendment, I am in fact seeking to protect the interests of the Exchequer rather than wishing to be less open with Parliament. The clause already sets out requirements for the Secretary of State or the Treasury to lay statements before Parliament when the guarantee is given, when payments are made under the guarantee, and if the default occurs on repayment. Should such a default occur, the noble Lord would of course be able to probe Ministers of the day through the usual parliamentary processes.
I hope that this will offer the noble Lord comfort on the matter and that, in the circumstances, he will agree that it is appropriate not to make the suggested amendment. I therefore invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Noble Lords opposite tabled Amendment No. 67 at Committee stage. Obviously, the explanation that I gave last time in defence of retaining subsection (4) of Clause 57 was not sufficient, so I shall make another attempt at it.
The subsection is essentially a protective measure. The direction to which it relates is one which requires the CAA to release NATS from debts which the latter owes to the CAA, in readiness for the establishment of the PPP. Once NATS is classified to the private sector it will not be able to borrow from public sources. However, it is not the intention that the Government will simply write off these debts. NATS' current debt to the National Loans Fund—approximately £300 million—can be dealt with in a number of ways. A likely course of action will be for NATS to take out a commercial loan at the time that the PPP is effected, which would be used to repay its debt to the National Loans Fund. Therefore the private sector and not the Government would be responsible for the debt. The precise mechanism will be decided nearer the time of the PPP, in conjunction with the strategic partner.
However, in complying with this direction, the CAA could be said to be acting in contravention of other duties placed upon it. It might be argued that the CAA

537
was not furthering the interests of its users by releasing NATS from its debt, even though it was acting in accordance with a direction given to it by the Secretary of State. The CAA would then be placed in an intolerable position; the subsection is designed to prevent that from happening.
I must make it clear to noble Lords, as I did last time, that this subsection is not a means by which important matters such as safety can be circumvented. It is simply to prevent the CAA from being subjected to frivolous and vexatious claims. I hope that noble Lords opposite will accept this explanation and withdraw their amendment accordingly.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am grateful for the Minister's detailed response to the amendments. I am hound to say that they comprise rather too big a group. I should probably not have agreed to such a large grouping.
The Minister's opening remarks almost took the form of a Second Reading speech and were a commercial for the PPP proposal. The noble Lord need not worry so far as I am concerned. I am well aware of the need for investment in this sector and I am well aware of the absolute paramount need for safety. As I said earlier, we are grateful for the government amendments moved at the beginning of our deliberations.
As regards the detail of some of the amendments, I shall need to read most carefully what has been said by the noble Lord. However, I am bound to say that I remain puzzled by the argument over a 49 per cent stake and a 25 per cent stake. If it is proposed that the government holding should be reduced to 25 per cent, why mention 49 per cent in the first place?
So far as concerns the golden share—or the special share—I am sure that I shall come back to this at Third Reading. Since the Committee stage, we have heard a judgment in regard to the BAA situation. The whole status of golden shares in privatised companies is in some doubt. I do not intend to take up further time on these issues. As I said, I shall read carefully what the Minister said. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 52 to 56 not moved.]
Lord Lea of Crondall Lord Lea of Crondall moved Amendment No. 57:
Before Clause 52, insert the following new clause—

Transport Bill

  VOTING RIGHTS OF CROWN SHAREHOLDER, EMPLOYEE PARTICIPATION, ETC
  (" .—(1) This section applies if any property, rights or liabilities are transferred under a transfer scheme to a transferee which at the time of the transfer is—

  (a) a company which is wholly owned by the Crown;

  (b) a company which is wholly owned by the CAA;

  (c) a company which is a wholly owned subsidiary of a company falling within paragraph (a) or (b).

  (2) The Secretary of State may by order designate such a transferee for the purposes of this section.
  (3) The Secretary of State must ensure that, in relation to members' resolutions of the designated company, the proportion of votes exercised by the Crown shareholder, as a proportion of the total votes available to all shareholders, shall be in direct proportion to the proportion of shares in issue held by the Crown shareholder.
  (4) The Secretary of State must ensure that the Crown shareholder must appoint a number of Directors to the Board of the designated Company, so that the proportion of its appointees on the Board is equal to the proportion of shares in issue held by the Crown shareholder.
  (5) The Secretary of State must ensure that at least 5 per cent. of the designated company's issued ordinary share capital shall be held by an Employee Share Trust on behalf of employees.
  (6) The Secretary of State must ensure that a representative of the Employee Share Trust is appointed to the Board of Directors of the designated company.").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment deals with the detail of the strategic partnership, which is lodged in the Library and is not on the face of the Bill. That makes matters rather difficult.
  We first raised this matter in Committee. This is an unusual PPP, and the question arises of what view the House should take about the strategic partnership agreement. One can readily acknowledge that there is a tension between, on the one hand, giving potential bidders the reassurance they seek regarding their capital investment, and, on the other hand, a cluster of features of the industry, about which we have heard, which circumscribe that.
  Perhaps I may begin with the formula under which 49 per cent of shares will be retained by the Government, 46 per cent will be for the strategic partner to purchase, and 5 per cent will be for the employees. In his reply at Committee stage, my noble friend said that the Government have always made it clear that the strategic partner will have operational control of NATS. He said that to oblige the Government to retain voting rights equivalent to their proportionate shareholding would effectively deprive the strategic partner of voting control. Of course it would—but what was the point of the 49 per cent, 46 per cent, 5 per cent split in the first place.?
  One of my noble friends referred earlier to PPPs in sectors such as the National Health Service and described how well they operated. Perhaps I may take that as an analogy and demonstrate why this particular PPP is not a normal one. Is it the case in the National Health Service that a PPP would operate on the basis that strategic control of a trust would be vested in a private sector partner even when that private sector partner had a lesser shareholding than the Government? Perhaps my noble friend will comment on that when he replies.
  It has been pointed out that we are talking about an area of rapid structural change, which will increase in the coming years. That is an argument which cuts both ways. The Minister's speculation, which he has reiterated, is in the context of half-a-dozen centres dealing with the lion's share of air traffic over the whole of Europe. We look forward to the report of a high level group on the single European sky. That will be the start of the process my noble friend referred to as a tremendous opportunity for the UK air traffic control industry, NATS specifically.
  In some respects, it is rather unfortunate that the European dimension will become clear only after the Bill has passed all its stages. But, depending on the amount of water that will have gone under the bridge by then, can the matter not be adjusted, if necessary, by looking again at the strategic partnership agreement, both in terms of further relations with the bidders and in terms of the European dimension? Perhaps there was a hint of that in the Minister's earlier comment.
  The second element in the amendment concerns employee interests. The key issue is found in subsection (6), which seeks to build on the proposal in subsection (5) that the 5 per cent of the shares earmarked for employees should be reflected in the appointment of a director. This would be minimum recognition of the fact that we are talking about a partnership between the different stakeholders. In this regard, perhaps my noble friend will reconsider the nature of the objection he advanced in Committee when he said that he does not believe that representatives can sit on a board because of a conflict of interest. I paraphrase. That is the last argument the Minister should use. If that is his argument, I should point out that there are conflicts of interest all over the place.
  We are talking about a new style of partnership. My noble friend is to be congratulated on trying to innovate. But he says that this is one area in which he cannot innovate because of his experience in Glasgow 30 years ago. We have all had experiences. He said that in those days workers' representatives could not sit on both sides of the fence. We are now talking about innovation and about a stakeholder board, in effect. Life has moved on in the past 30 years. I hope that my noble friend will feel able to revisit his philosophy on these issues.
  Lord Brett: My Lords, perhaps I may refer again to my "Gulliver's travels" to Canada. I raised with the people I met in Canada the role of the trade union directors—there were two trade union directors on the board—and I asked the airline representatives whether there was a conflict of interest. They said that one of the reasons for the success of the trust was both the choice of the partners—the board of directors—and the quality of the people. They said that they found it a great advantage to have trade union representatives—this was not the trade union representatives speaking but the other directors—because they knew directly that they represented an influence; that is, the staff. They felt that in the planning process and some of the difficult decisions they had to take, that allowed for a greater understanding and a greater confidence in the workforce than otherwise would be the case.
  They have a stakeholder council similar to that envisaged in the PPP. They said that they did not believe that holding the trade union representation at that level would have provided anything like the value
  540
  of having trade union representatives on the board of directors. I hope that the Minister will take that into account in his consideration of this issue.
  Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I support the amendment on behalf of myself as president of BALPA. I do not speak on behalf of BALPA but on behalf of myself.
  As my noble friend Lord Brett said, there is an advantage in ensuring a proper reflection of the point of view of employees. The amendment does not state that the employee must be a representative of a particular union; it involves the idea that the employees have a contribution to make. Of course they have. There is no way other than representation through the official trade union that they can make that contribution.
  I know of people who have been elected because they are members of BALPA and involve themselves in policies which are important to them and important to the people from whom they have come. But it does not seem to me imperative that they should represent individual employees per se.
  The amendment encapsulates the idea that employees should have a voice—no more, no less. I entirely agree with the views of those who are in favour of the amendment.
  7 p.m.
  Lord Hoyle: My Lords, Gulliver's Travels was referred to by my noble friend Lord Brett; but perhaps we are talking about "Brett's travels". We owe my noble friend a debt of gratitude. On so many of the issues raised in our debates today he has ascertained whether there are practical advantages in what is being said.
  To take up a point made by my noble friend Lord Lea, perhaps my noble friend the Minister did have some experience in a Glasgow shipyard years ago, but the idea of not being able to serve two masters has a ring of Marxism about it rather than of partnership with new Labour. Matters have moved on. We are talking about continuous partnership between employer and employee. As we are breaking new ground, the amendment offers a unique opportunity to put an employee representative on the board.
  As always, my noble friend the Minister has approached us to see whether we could reach agreement that there should be consultation with the trade unions, of their being instrumental in advising on the appointment of a director and having the same director as on the board of trustees. However, in the words of the TUC, having a trustee director on the main board could lead to a conflict of interest. As I say, it is a substitute for the employees either being directly represented or having a representative on the board.
  I turn to an equally important point. We must give the employees confidence in the changes that are taking place. At present, they lack confidence and trust. They are concerned about what is happening. The way to bring them along with us is to make sure that they are directly represented on the board.

  541
  I hope that my noble friend the Minister will take this point on board and that he is prepared to break the necessary new ground. My noble friend means what he says; there is no doubt that he would consult with employers in relation to the appointment of directors. But there will be Ministers other than my noble friends who may belong to different parties with a different philosophy. Even given what my noble friend has said, a provision needs to be written in to the Bill. If consultation is to take place, we must ensure that it does not merely take place with this Government or this Minister but with other Ministers in future governments.
  I hope that my noble friend will say that employees can have direct representation. However, even given his own method—namely, consultation—I hope he will agree to consider a provision on the face of the Bill to ensure that, whichever method is chosen, it will also happen in the future with governments of a different political hue.
  Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, the new clause proposed in the amendment, which has already been laid once at Committee stage, seeks to do four things, and I shall deal again with each in turn.
  Turning to the first of these objectives, on the subject of voting rights, the Government have always made it clear that the strategic partner will have voting and operational control of NATS, except in relation to certain key areas where the approval of the government-appointed directors, or in some cases the Secretary of State, will be required.
  In reply to the noble Lord, Lord Lea, let me say that obliging the Government to retain voting rights equivalent to their proportionate shareholding in NATS would effectively deprive the strategic partner of operational control of NATS, as its share of the votes would be less than that of the Government. That would jeopardise NATS' private sector classification, which would ultimately deny it access to private sector capital—one of the key objectives of the PPP. Perhaps I may remind the House that NATS will face a huge investment programme over the next 10 years. The inability to give the strategic partner voting control would undermine its confidence in its investment, possibly reducing the value of the NATS shares that the Government, and ultimately the taxpayer, will receive.
  With regard to the second objective—namely, to ensure that the Government can always appoint a proportionate number of directors to the NATS board—this would deprive the strategic partner of board control, thereby again placing NATS' private sector classification at risk and rendering an investment in NATS unattractive to potential strategic partners. Furthermore, it would most likely result in the Government and the strategic partner having an equal number of directors, creating the potential for deadlocks at board level—something that could jeopardise not only the commercial future of NATS but also the ability of NATS to put in place the systems and procedures necessary to guarantee the ongoing
  542
  provision of safe air traffic services. Having a clear line of direction, albeit with proper checks and safeguards, is essential to a successful future for NATS.
  Turning now to the third objective, namely to ensure that 5 per cent of NATS' share capital is held by an employee share trust, the Government have always made it clear that employees will be entitled to participate in NATS through holding up to 5 per cent of the ordinary share capital. This policy has not changed. It is inappropriate to attempt to prescribe the details of a complex employee share participation arrangement in primary legislation. The amendment proposed would have the effect of requiring the shares to be owned, both legally and beneficially, by the employee share trust. This would deprive employees of the full benefit of the shares (that is, the receipt of dividends and proceeds from their sale).
  Finally, the amendment seeks to secure employee representation on the board of NATS. It would be highly unusual for a major UK company to have employee representation on its board, particularly in the case of a company which is intended to be operated along the lines of a listed company. I say to my noble friends that I spoke as much from my experience as a director and chairman of a number of listed companies as I did from any trade union experience. An employee representative could face a conflict of interest between the protection of the rights of employees and the best interests of the company. This would create tensions at board level which could hamper the effective management of the company and could increase the risk of deadlock.
  Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, will my noble friend give way? There are ample examples of employee representatives, or people advanced by their trade union, who are already directors. Is he saying that they are always beset by problems of conflict of interest?
  Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, I did not say "always". I said that this could create tensions at board level, that it could hamper the effective management of the company and could increase the risk of deadlock. For that reason, we do not think it appropriate to put suchx2014;
  Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, I had not intended to intervene in this debate. However, I am puzzled as to why one type of employee representative would be prejudicial to the board's performance, when the presence of other employees who are directors of companies is not damaging to the board.
  Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, it is for the simple reason that a board director would have a fiduciary duty to the interests of the company. If such people were seen as representatives of trade unions and employees, it would be difficult for them in some circumstances to perform that fiduciary duty without a conflict of interest being perceived by those who thought that they had been appointed to represent their interests, not the interests of the company. We do not believe that it would be appropriate to include such

  543
  a prescriptive clause in primary legislation. However, if following discussion between employee representatives and the strategic partner, the strategic partner felt it appropriate and beneficial to put an employee representative on the board, the Government would not oppose that. I can tell the House that we intend to facilitate such discussion. Once we have established a short list of bidders, we shall arrange meetings between them and staff representatives to discuss bidders' plans for the future of the company.
  I must also point out to noble Lords, as I have before, that we have endeavoured to give employees a voice on the stakeholder council that is to be created. It will be an influential body whose views will carry considerable weight. More importantly, it will allow representatives of NATS' employees and users of aviation access to direct involvement in the company.
  The council will offer a forum for discussion and influence on NATS' plans and arrangements for the provision of air traffic services. It will also offer the opportunity for any member of the council to raise an issue regarding the provision of these services by NATS and its subsidiaries, and for this issue to come to a resolution. The council will pay particular attention to areas such as major investment projects, safety issues, standards and service provision, long-term investment plans and the development of new technology.
  I should also remind noble Lords that the Government will have the right to appoint two or perhaps three "partnership directors" to the board of the PPP company. The Government will also have the right to appoint a trustee to an employee share trust. We are proposing that we should consult staff representatives about the criteria that we shall use in selecting these appointees, so that staff can feel comfortable about the appointments. We are also proposing that the government trustee be appointed as one of the partnership directors. This person, although bound by the rules of both appointments, would be uniquely well informed on matters of interest to staff. I am confident that that unique position could helpfully inform the board as it takes key decisions.
  I hope that noble Lords will agree that these measures, together with staff representation on the stakeholder council that I mentioned, will go a long way towards addressing staff concerns and provide sensible working arrangements that will be of benefit to all the parties involved. These matters are essentially—
  Lord Hoyle: My Lords, before my noble friend concludes, perhaps he could answer my query on his proposals regarding how we can ensure that consultation will take place in the future; that is to say, when he is no longer the Minister with such responsibility.
  Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, if noble Lords study the documentation that we have produced for the PPP, they will see that the partnerships that we have talked about are entrenched as far as possible. In any future situation, it seems unlikely that a government would transfer their right to have directors appointed away from themselves and in that way deny themselves the opportunity to have the strategic role that we presently propose.
  These matters are essentially for the partnership documentation—that is where we have already undertaken to place them. Therefore, they would be out of the place on the face of the Bill. In view of that explanation and the reassurances that I have given, I invite my noble friends to withdraw the amendment.
  Lord Lea of Crondall: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his clarification on the matter. However, I have two points to make. First, this is clearly not just a normal plc; it is a PPP and, inherently, a partnership multi-stakeholder model. In effect, the Minister is seeking a third way. Indeed, he mentioned the stakeholder council, as well as many other innovations that would be on the agenda in that respect.
  Secondly, I should just like to point out that the board that is emerging is a two-tier concept; it is not a traditional unitary board in the sense that we have always understood. We are innovating as we go along. I shall withdraw my amendment, but I should like to consider the position further before we reach the final stages of the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 52 [Loans]:
  [Amendment No. 58 not moved]
  Clause 53 [Guarantees]:
  [Amendments Nos. 59 to 61 not moved.]
  Clause 54 [Grants]:
  [Amendment No. 62 not moved]
  Clause 55 [Trustee investments]:
  [Amendment No. 63 not moved.]
  Clause 56 [Shadow directors]:
  [Amendments Nos. 64 to 66 not moved.]
  Clause 57 [Extinguishment of liabilities]:
  [Amendment No. 67 not moved.]
  Clause 62 [Exercise of functions through nominees]:
  [Amendments Nos. 68 and 69 not moved.]
  The Deputy Speaker (Viscount Allenby of Megiddo): My Lords, in place of Amendment No. 70, I call Amendment No. 70A.
  7.15 p.m.
  Lord Brett Lord Brett moved Amendment No. 70A:
  After Clause 64, insert the following new clause—

  PENSION ENTITLEMENT OF PRESENT AND FORMER EMPLOYEES OF NATS
  (".—(1) In this section—
  "NATS employer" includes NATS, any designated company which succeeds to the business of NATS and any employer other than a designated company which succeeds to or acquires any part of the business of NATS;
  "NATS" is National Air Traffic Services Ltd whose air traffic services are to be transferred under the provisions of this Act;
  "protected beneficiary" includes—

  (a) any person who, on the transfer date, is employed by NATS and is an active member of the Scheme;

  (b) any person who is employed by NATS on the transfer date, but is then too young to join the Scheme, and who subsequently joins;

  (c) any person who is not an active member of the Scheme on the transfer date but who is subsequently entitled to rejoin as a NATS employee without a break in their continuity of employment;

  (d.) any person who is not an active member of the Scheme on the transfer date, but who is entitled to accrued pension rights under the Scheme at that date; and

  (e) any person who is prospectively or contingently entitled to benefit under the Scheme on the death of a person covered under (a) to (d) above;

  "relevant scheme" means the Scheme or any other scheme of a NATS employer that covers protected beneficiaries, and that provides benefits in respect of the protected beneficiaries which are at least equivalent in value to those applicable to the protected beneficiaries as at the transfer date;
  "Scheme" means the Civil Aviation Authority Pension Scheme;
  "transfer date" means the date of the transfer of NATS to the public-private partnership.
  (2) NATS (or, if appropriate, the designated company) shall, subject to the consent of the Pension Schemes Office of the Inland Revenue, participate in the Scheme as a non-associated employer.
  (3) If NATS (or the designated company) does participate in the Scheme as a non-associated employer, a proportion of the total assets of the Scheme shall be segregated for the benefit of the protected beneficiaries and the share of assets so segregated shall be equal in proportion to the proportion that the Scheme liabilities in respect of the protected beneficiaries bears to the Scheme's liabilities as a whole.
  (4) If NATS (or the designated company) is unable to participate in the Scheme, that NATS employer shall instead make available a relevant scheme for the benefit of the protected beneficiaries.
  (5) If the shares or business of NATS (or the designated company), or any part of that business, is transferred to a NATS employer other than NATS or a designated company, that NATS employer shall become a non-associated employer in the Scheme and if that is not possible that NATS employer shall instead make available a relevant scheme for the benefit of the protected beneficiaries.
  (6) For the purposes of subsections (4) and (5), if a NATS employer is to make available a relevant scheme other than the Scheme, a share of the assets of the Scheme (or of the previous relevant scheme if not the Scheme) shall be transferred to the receiving relevant scheme, calculated on the basis described in subsection (3).
  (7) If a protected beneficiary transfers to the employment of another employer that also participates in the Scheme but which is not a NATS employer, that beneficiary shall remain a protected beneficiary for the purposes of the benefits to be provided to and in respect of him under the relevant scheme and if that beneficiary subsequently transfers back to the employment of a NATS employer he shall still remain a protected beneficiary.
  (8) For so long as a NATS employer remains as a participating employer of the Scheme in respect of protected beneficiaries, one trustee of the Scheme shall be a member representative selected from amongst the protected beneficiaries, and one trustee of the Scheme shall be an employer representative of the NATS employer.
  (9) The NATS employer shall contribute to the relevant scheme at no less than the rate recommended by that scheme's actuary as being sufficient to secure the accrued rights from time to time of the protected beneficiaries in full by the purchase of annuities and the NATS employer shall not he entitled unilaterally to suspend or terminate its contributions to the relevant scheme except upon its insolvency.
  (10) On the full winding-up of a relevant scheme, or on a partial winding-up which involves protected beneficiaries, any shortfall in the assets required to buy out the accrued rights at that time of the protected beneficiaries shall be met in full by the relevant NATS employer and shall be treated as a debt on the employer.
  (11) If, on the full or partial winding-up of a relevant scheme, as described in subsection (10), the trustees wish, rather than securing benefits by the purchase of annuities, to pay a bulk transfer to another scheme, that other scheme shall be a relevant scheme and the transfer value payable in respect of the protected beneficiaries shall be sufficient to secure a buy out of their accrued rights if the receiving scheme were to be wound up immediately following the transfer.
  (12) The NATS employer shall provide future benefits in the relevant scheme which, in respect of the protected beneficiaries, are at last equivalent in value to those available tinder the Scheme at the transfer date.
  (13) No amendment may be made to a relevant scheme which would result in a reduction of the accrued or future rights of protected beneficiaries, nor in an increase in the contributions payable by protected beneficiaries who are active members.").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, I should explain that this amendment is simply a rather clearer version than Amendment No. 70, which we originally tabled.
  I shall begin my remarks by quoting my noble friend Lord Whitty on Second Reading, who said that,
  "the staff [of NATS] are absolutely key. The future of NATS depends on the quality and commitment of its staff".— [Official Report, 5/6/00; col. 1027.]
  The noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, moved an amendment in Committee, the terms of which were similar to those in our amendment. The express purpose of both amendments is to protect the pension rights of such vital and committed staff. When responding in Committee, my noble friend told the House that the amendment was "not justified", and went on to present a detailed explanation in support of that contention. He claimed that it would burden the PPP with an unnecessary framework. My noble friend also rejected comparison with the position of London Transport workers, whose pension provisions are protected in a later part of this Bill.
  However, my noble friend offered to meet us and those other noble Lords who were concerned about the matter. Such a meeting has taken place. Alas, the Government's position remains that such a clause is unnecessary in their view. Accordingly, we now submit a similar amendment for your Lordships'

  547
  consideration. We believe that such an amendment is required for two reasons. First, as my noble friend Lord Hoyle mentioned, there is a very real need to give confidence to the staff. Such confidence comes in many ways, but none more so than in protecting those pension rights that they have accrued over many years. We believe that there is a strong political reason for giving the staff confidence, if only because they see little merit in the overall PPP proposal as it stands.
  Even if my noble friend the Minister were correct to say that adequate protection already exists within the trust deed, that, in itself, will not convince the staff as long as the Government refuse to provide equal treatment within the Bill as that provided for London Transport staff. Indeed, whether or not it is necessary, there is a very real belief in the minds of the staff that if such provision is not on the face of the Bill they will not be in a protected position.
  This amendment is required for a substantive as well as a political reason. That is evidenced by the decision of the trustees of the CAA pension scheme, who have determined that they will pursue legal action against the Government if they fail to provide the assurances sought by way of this amendment. I understand that the authority has earmarked up to £1 million for that task, so it is obviously not a decision that it has taken lightly. However, staff also wish this amendment to be incorporated into the Bill because it would guarantee the following—and this is where I believe some misunderstanding may have arisen in Committee.
  We wish to ensure that a new NATS employer, or a successor employer, would be required to contribute to the scheme at a level that would protect the accrued rights and benefits of members—not simply the level provided by minimum funding requirements; that future owners would have to provide benefits in the scheme that were at least as good as those in the present CAA scheme; that sufficient funds should be set aside within the CAA pension scheme to reflect its liabilities to pensioners; and that NATS employees be guaranteed the right to remain in the CAA pension scheme in the event of there being subsequent transfers of ownership down the track. In that sense, I believe that the Minister pointed out in Committee that the trust deed is a powerful document and one that is not easily changed. However, even though such matters are subject to the trust deed, the truth is that the employer has considerable responsibility for— and, indeed, considerable control over—the funding of any pension scheme.
  Therefore, as I said on the previous occasion, if we are not able to secure an assurance on the face of the Bill, we shall have to divide the House on the issue. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will be able to consider the matter yet again. I trust that he will give us reason to believe that the confidence that we need to give the staff is the very same confidence as my noble friend Lord Whitty expressed on Second Reading when he spoke about the quality and the commitment of the staff being absolutely key to the future of NATS.
  548
  If we do not protect the pensions of the staff, we shall not get that confidence; and that quality and commitment will be at risk. I beg to move.
  Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe: My Lords, I support the amendment, as I did at Second Reading. However, I do not propose to repeat the arguments which I advanced then. I have considered many of the arguments proposed by my noble friend the Minister for Transport. I am sorry that he is not present at the moment to hear the points I make.
  Throughout my noble friend's comments in favour of the PPP he has spoken most passionately on occasion in favour of providing the strategic partnership with the opportunity to spread itself into the rest of the world, certainly into Europe. A number of people are therefore convinced that changes will come about through the European open skies policy and that there is a case on those grounds for a new structure to be put in place. It is interesting to note that every air traffic control organisation throughout Europe—the new PPP may wish to enter into partnerships with those organisations—is state owned. Indeed, one of the PPPs which is bidding to take over NATS is being advised by three state-owned organisations, all of which will have state funded pension arrangements.
  If the organisation appears attractive from a business point of view, it may seek to link up, or merge, with other European organisations. Those European organisations will bring civil servants, or people who enjoy broadly Civil Service terms, to the negotiating table. Their employees will have pension arrangements backed by their respective state or country. I believe that we ought to have on the face of the Bill similar arrangements in the strategic partnership in terms of conditions of employment so that we present broadly comparable terms and a more appealing and attractive proposition for those employees in other European countries who might be reluctant to contemplate joining strategic partnerships or mergers. If we adopt a common approach on pension arrangements to include ultimately backing from the state if anything goes wrong, that would present a better business case with which to go forward in the future.
  This is a new argument which I advance, having listened to the passionate and compelling points made by the Minister for Transport. I hope that in view of the points which I and the noble Lord, Lord Brett, have made, we shall receive a more sympathetic response from the Government than we have received hitherto.
  Lord Hoyle: My Lords, my noble friend the Minister is normally extremely sympathetic to our arguments. However, his response to this matter on the previous occasion we discussed it contained much Treasury "double speak" rather than a consideration of the needs of the employees. The employees need to be reassured on this matter. I believe that my noble friend Lord Brett said that the trustees of the pension scheme are so concerned about the matter that they are prepared to go to the High Court and spend up to

  549
  £1 million if the assurances that are sought are not included on the face of the Bill. That shows the tremendous concern that people feel about this matter. Nothing concerns people more than the prospect of losing the benefits of a good pension scheme. They have reason to be concerned because, despite all the assurances given by my noble friend the Minister on a previous occasion—he spoke of this agreement and that agreement which do not allow changes to be made—I must remind him that the National Bus Company pension scheme did not stand the test of time. The workers of that company were sold down the river. That experience must not be repeated.
  We are not asking for the moon or for something that has not been granted before. All the relevant safeguards were put in place at the time of the electricity privatisation. People will not understand—not just Members present in the Chamber tonight—the fact that an undertaking is already on the face of the Bill for those who work on the Underground.
  On the previous occasion we discussed this matter my noble friend said that there might be fragmentation and the employers might change. That is why we are trying to reassure the employees. I believe that he used the words "more complex". But what could be more complex than the open skies policy if we are to merge with organisations in a number of different countries? Some people think—the workers in the industry think this and that is the important point—that there might already be proposals to fragment NATS as it exists at present. I hope that my noble friend will agree that these are good and extremely logical reasons why the assurance we seek should be included on the face of the Bill. Those involved in the industry cannot understand why an assurance can be included on the face of the Bill for those who work on the Underground but not for air traffic controllers. That is beyond me. I hope that my noble friend will be sympathetic to my arguments and will agree that the assurance we seek should be included on the face of the Bill.
  Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I entirely accept the arguments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Hoyle. If my noble friend adduces the argument that this proposal has been put forward without adequate consideration—although I am not sure that he will—I assert that that would be entirely wrong. The lawyers who have advised those who have tabled the amendment have said specifically that the proposal is perfectly all right. Therefore my noble friend puts forward that argument at his peril. I take the view that it is important that the employees should have confidence in the Government. The proposal is the way to ensure that. There is no other way. That being the case, I hope that my noble friend will accede to the arguments which have been forcefully made by my noble friends tonight.
  Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Brett, in moving the amendment, reminded the House that in Committee a similar amendment was tabled in my name. I continue to think that he received rather better advice in tabling his
  550
  amendment than I did. That is why I have not resubmitted it. It is right and proper that we should support him in his endeavour. I do so because it is a matter of justice. Those whose working conditions are altered through no desire of their own should have protected one of their most valuable assets; namely, their pension. That should be clearly stated on the face of the Bill. I hope that we can convince the Government that that is the correct approach to take in this case.
  Lord Berkeley: My Lords, I support the amendment. I pick up a point made by my noble friend Lord Hoyle about the National Bus Company employees. I recall that when my right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister was an opposition transport spokesman he campaigned long and hard against the Tory plan which many of us felt sold the pensions of those employees down the river and allowed the fund to be raided on privatisation. The fact that it has taken my right honourable friend three years since the election to achieve anything in this regard shows how hard he has tried. My gut feeling is that is probably because the Treasury fought long, hard and perhaps "dirty" to stop that happening. I believe that employees are suspicious of the Treasury not wanting the measure we are discussing. However, as my noble friends have said, the amendment seeks to safeguard the pension; of a valuable set of employees at a time of great uncertainty and should be taken extremely seriously. As I say, I support the amendment.
  7.30 p.m.
  Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Brett, for explaining once again his amendment on this issue. I well remember the subject of pensions being discussed during every privatisation. I sat through a good many of them when I was on the other side of the House. Therefore, for the life of me I cannot understand why the Government are so resistant to putting an amendment such as this on the face of the Bill.
  Furthermore, I am most grateful for some briefing that I have received from the IPMS, the union responsible for air traffic controllers, which, like the noble Lord, Lord Hoyle, and others, is so concerned about this matter. The trustees of the Civil Aviation Pension Scheme are prepared to make available up £l million for legal action as regards this issue. It must surely be an issue of major concern to the Government.
  I do not intend to rehearse all their arguments, but I have received a detailed response rebutting many of the points made by the Minister in Committee. I look forward with great interest to what the Minister has to say in reply to this amendment. My inclination is to support the noble Lord, Lord Brett.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, my starting point now, as at Committee stage, is entirely consistent with what the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, said at Second

  551
  Reading. Nobody can value the staff of NATS more than we do; nobody can feel more strongly than we do that they deserve proper treatment in every respect, not just as regards pensions. However, they deserve proper protection in particular for their pensions.
  We have reflected on the points made in Committee. I can assure noble Lords that we have done so in great detail. Pensions affect us all. I can well understand why the issue is so important to NATS employees. We fully support the need to protect the pensions of NATS staff and we would not do anything to put them at risk.
  I understand the issue of confidence to which the noble Lord, Lord Brett, refers; namely, that these fears were very real throughout the privatisations of the 1980s and early 1990s. If I were the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, I would not refer to them in quite such a cheerful way. During those years tens of thousands of public servants passed from the public sector to the private sector without adequate reassurance about how their pensions would be protected. Sometimes they were denied access to a pension scheme as good as the one they were leaving. Sometimes they were confronted by invidious choices about what to do with their accrued service in the public sector pension scheme, which meant that one way or the other they would loose.
  In three privatisations—coal, electricity and rail—the previous administration used primary legislation to give statutory protected person rights to employees in those industries regarding their access to occupational pension schemes after transfer to the private sector. In every other case no such protection was given and the range of outcomes was extremely variable. Noble Lords will remember the privatisation of London Buses. I take that as a particular example of the bus industry generally to which the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, referred. London Transport staff were forcibly separated from their pension scheme with no effective safeguards as to the quality of its replacements.
  That was the legacy we inherited in 1997. We set to work on reform. In 1998 interim new guidance was issued by the Cabinet Office under the title "Better Quality Services". This re-emphasised the importance of protecting staff pensions in restructuring involving private sector partners and required that the quality of that protection should be a factor in assessing bids for partnership. Then, in June 1999, the "wicked" Treasury issued definitive guidance under the title "A Fair Deal for Staff Pensions" which was subsequently incorporated into broader guidance on the treatment of staff by the Cabinet Office at the beginning of the year.
  The object of these reforms was perfectly simple: to take the fear out of public sector reform and sales as far as pensions were concerned and to set a common standard of protection which all projects should pass. What we have now is a comprehensive framework of protection which represents a huge improvement in the standard of treatment of staff. It is a fair deal not
  552
  only for the staff, but also for the private sector businesses bidding to enter into partnership to deliver public services.
  That is the background against which we have looked at the NATS employees. Our common goal is to reassure NATS staff about the pensions they have a right to expect in their retirement. I believe that I can give the reassurance which is needed without the need for amendments to the Bill.
  Perhaps I may explain how. The Civil Aviation Authority Pensions Scheme is to be amended in order to make it possible for staff employed by the PPP to remain members of that scheme. Technically, the CAAPS is already a centralised scheme for non-associated employers because Highlands and Islands Airports Limited is a non-associated employer within it. Amendments to the scheme are necessary to reflect requirements such as the elimination of cross-subsidy which is now much more relevant given the much greater size which the NATS PPP section would have within CAAPS.
  That means that staff will continue to enjoy the benefits that they currently receive. They will be able also to enjoy such new benefits as are agreed from future surpluses. They may also draw some comfort from belonging to an excellent public sector scheme, one that is very comfortably funded. For example, at the most recent evaluation of CAAPS on 31st December 1998, the minimum funding ratio was in excess of 190 per cent. Since the MFR represents what I might call the statutory floor for the funding of pension schemes, a funding ratio of 190 per cent represents a substantial excess. As regards benefits, pensions in payment are index-linked and pension benefit is calculated not just on base salary, but includes overtime and certain other fluctuating remuneration.
  Perhaps I may digress to cover the position of current pensions and deferred pensioners. I can assure the House that the position of those two groups will remain unaffected by the PPP. They will remain in CAAPS; they will be in the CAA section of the scheme, which will also include current CAA staff. They will continue to receive benefits in the same way as they do now.
  Returning to the NATS public/private partnership, we have made it very clear to all those bidding to be our strategic partner in the PPP that securing that current staff can continue to participate in CAAPS is a fundamental condition of being considered for that role. In addition, we will put into the strategic partnership agreement a binding commitment, enforceable at law, that guarantees the continuation of that right on terms at least as favourable as those now existing.
  Then there is the protection of pensions that exists under the law of the land, such as the pensions Acts of 1993 and 1995. These provide, among other things, protection for accrued benefits and funding levels.
  A further level of protection exists in the CAAPS trust deed and rules to which my noble friends have referred. These are unusually restrictive and protective

  553
  of members' interests. Although it may not always have been the case, it is now universally accepted and buttressed by statute that accrued rights—that is to say, the pension which an individual has earned by each day at work—cannot be adversely affected by amendments to pension schemes. By contrast, it is entirely usual for the sponsoring employer of a pension scheme to have the ability to reduce the level of benefits for future service such as prospective benefits. However, no employer who participates in CAAPS has that power because of the restrictive power of amendment in the trust deed which provides that amendments cannot be made to reduce accrued or prospective benefits. When this restrictive power is allied to the continuing interest of the Government in the PPP as shareholder, quite apart from the express contractual provisions in the strategic partnership agreement, l believe that the House will agree that there is a very substantial set of protections for the current NATS staff.
  Those who argue for statutory protection—additional protection on the face of the Bill—accept these points. But they go on to make two other claims: first, that it would have the value for NATS staff of offering them firmer assurances than those that I have just outlined; and, secondly, as has been argued tonight, that the proposal is precedented in past privatisations and indeed in Clause 243 of the Bill for Underground railway staff in London. That is true, but it is not the whole story. Let me deal with the issue of London Underground.
  The case is much more complex than that of NATS. In the case of NATS, we are arranging for a once-and-for-all transfer of the company to the private sector. There is no break-up of the company. There is no reorganisation of the industry into a number of parts, so there is no need for provision to deal with the subcontracting that occurs in the railway industry. There is no provision for the return of some parts to the public sector. Nor are the trust deeds of the two schemes or the arrangements for changes to those deeds comparable—the power of amendment to the London Underground deed is not as restrictive as with CAAPS. In particular, unlike CAAPS prospective benefits could be adversely changed.
  Lord Brett: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. My question relates to the PPP a year or two down the track. A policy of the strategic partner of the PPP might be to shed responsibility for some of the airports on the ground that they are the less profitable parts of the NATS empire. If that related, for example, to Aberdeen, Edinburgh or Glasgow, the staff therein are likely to find themselves required to become employees of the new employer. Where would they fit? Thai is exactly the shedding the Minister described in respect of London Transport.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I shall come to that. It is a significant point.
  Let me deal with the issue of protection beyond the PPP and the TUPE issue, which I believe is what my noble friend refers to. Yes, there is ultimately the
  554
  possibility of transfer of staff beyond the PPP. But, first, we fully intend to remain a partner in the PPP. Secondly, we are obliged to do so by the terms of the Bill. Thirdly, if that position were to be changed in the future it could be done only with the express authority of Parliament. In other words, it would have to be the affirmative resolution of both Houses. Finally, for as long as the Government remain a partner, the PPP remains intact and the protections on pensions remain intact.
  Because CAAPS is a centralised scheme for non-associated employers it is perfectly possible—it would be our intention—that any disposal of the kind to which my noble friend Lord Brett refers would be on the basis of the new organisation being a non-associated employer on the same basis, and with the same terms and conditions, as exist at present. I hope that that is a full reassurance.
  I turn now to what my noble friend Lord Brett said at the conclusion of his speech. I am sorry to take so long but it is clearly important and everyone is rightly concerned about this. He divided his arguments into the political and the substantive. He said that even if everything I said was right, it would not convince the staff. Everything that I have said is right and it is, of course, our responsibility and everyone's responsibility to seek to convince the staff.
  He went on to say that even if everything I said was right, there are substantive issues. He talked about the fund of £1 million which the trustees have to challenge the issue in the courts. I understand that. It is a highly unusual procedure but they are entitled to do it. I do not for a moment say that they should not. I am not claiming that that would delay or hinder the delivery of the PPP. That is not my argument. My argument is that on each of the four points which the trustees challenge—my noble friend Lord Brett set them out rather quickly and I am relying on my notes— I can give an assurance that the existing Bill without amendment meets those points: first, that the employer contributions are sufficient to provide the protection which is required; secondly, that the benefits are protected—I have made that clear on existing and prospective service; thirdly, that the funds are available to meet the liabilities—I made that clear when I talked about minimum funding requirement—and, finally, that the rights would remain on transfer of ownership. I have made that commitment as well in what I have said.
  So on what my noble friend Lord Brett calls the substantive points, as well as the political points, the Government believe that the employees of the National Air Traffic Service are fully protected. I have tried hard today to explain the Government's position. There is nothing between us on the aims of our policy. We all want to safeguard the pension entitlements. We have looked in detail at the statutory route as we promised the House we would do. We do not think that it is necessary to have an additional statutory protection on the face of the Bill because there are safeguards in existing legislation. Our commitment stands to the policy in the Fair Deal document, in the CAAPS trust deed and in the strategic partnership

  555
  agreement. My noble friends have asked for a conspicuous and unambiguous assurance. I hope that they will feel that I have given it unambiguously.
  Lord Brett: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that detailed explanation. I am grateful for his attempts to reassure the staff of NATS. As we speak there are probably some 300 NATS staff on duty at the West Drayton centre and Heathrow. As I listened to the Minister's explanation I tried to think how they would react. As the noble Lord rightly says, we have a responsibility to convince them, whatever the substantive arguments might be.
  The Minister began by going through the litany of previous pension issues which had created this fear—and the fear is real. I apologise for having broken the flow of his contribution by asking what happens with sell-ons. It seems to me that that puts staff in a similar position to London Transport staff, who are being given on the face of the Bill protection not available to NATS staff. I heard the reassurances. It will clearly not cost the Government anything to put this provision on the face of the Bill given the strength of the assurances.
  Air traffic controllers speak even more quickly than I do but with rather less volume; they talk to pilots in clipped sentences. The phrase "He protesteth too much" comes to mind. I am sure that my noble friend will say that this is a piece of legislation of no cost to the Government and of reassurance to the staff. The only element of cost arises from the £1 million set aside for a legal challenge, the response to which is bound to cost the taxpayer several million pounds. Air traffic controllers are very logical individuals. I am not convinced that they would not say in sum total that there is no problem in putting such a provision on the face of the Bill. I heard no reason why it should not be on the face of the Bill. I feel, therefore, that I should be doing a disservice—
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, before my noble friend finally makes a decision, I hope that he will do so on the content of the argument rather than on the issue of confidence. He will recall—I spared the House this today—that his amendment contains a series of conditions included in subsections (1) to (13), previously annotated (a) to (m). I went through those in Committee and demonstrated one after the other why each was unnecessary. Does my noble friend want me to repeat that as an intervention in his speech? Let me assure my noble friend that that argument is as true now as it was then.
  Lord Brett: My Lords, if the Minister were to do so, my colleagues on these Benches, or noble Lords from the Opposition Benches, might wish to quote extensively from a document in rebuttal which has been circulated. That would simply extend the debate considerably.
  The Minister's final two sentences persuade me that we have to take the opinion of the House.
  7.49 p.m.
  On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 70A) shall be agreed to?
  *Their Lordships divided: Contents, 78; Not-Contents, 77.

  Division No. 3

  CONTENTS

  Addington, L.

  Lyell, L.

  Anelay of St Johns, B.

  McNally, L.

  Astor of Hever, L.

  Maddock, B.

  Attlee, E.

  Mar and Kellie, E.

  Barker, B.

  Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B

  Berkeley, L.

  Monson, L.

  Blatch, B.

  Newby, L.

  Brabazon of Tare, L.

  Northbrook, L.

  Bradshaw, L.

  Northover, B.

  Brett, L. [Teller]

  O'Cathain, B.

  Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

  Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L.

  Brougham and Vaux, L.

  Onslow, E.

  Burnham, L.

  Park of Monmouth, B.

  Byford, B.

  Phillips of Sudbury, L.

  Clement-Jones, L.

  RazzalLL, L.

  Clinton-Davis, L.

  Redesdale, L.

  Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

  Rennard, L.

  Colwyn, L.

  Renton, L.

  Cumberlege, B.

  Roberts of Conwy, L.

  Evans of Parkside, L.

  Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

  Falkland, V.

  Roper, L.

  Gardner of Parkes, B.

  Russell, E.

  Geddes, L.

  Scott of Needham Market, B.

  Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

  Seccombe, B.

  Goodhart, L.

  Sharp of Guildford, B.

  Goschen, V.

  Shaw of Northstead, L.

  Greaves, L.

  Shutt of Greetland, L.

  Hamwee, B.

  Smith of Clifton, L.

  Hanham, B.

  Stoddart of Swindon, L.

  Hanningfield, L.

  Swinfen, L.

  Harris of Greenwich, L.

  Thomas of Walliswood, B.

  Harris of Richmond, B.

  Tordoff, L.

  Hogg, B.

  Trefgarne, L.

  Howe, E.

  Turner of Camden, B.

  Hoyle, L.

  Vivian, L.

  Jacobs, L.

  Waddington, L.

  Jopling, L.

  Walmsley, B.

  Lea of Crondall, L. [Teller]

  Watson of Richmond, L.

  Luke, L.

  Williams of Crosby, B.

  NOT-CONTENTS

  Acton, L.

  Desai, L.

  Allenby of Megiddo, V.

  Donoughue, L.

  Amos, B.

  Dormand of Easington, L.

  Andrews, B.

  Eatwell, L.

  Archer of Sandwell, L.

  Elder, L.

  Ashton of Upholland, B.

  Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

  Bach, L.

  Faulkner of Worcester, L.

  Bassam of Brighton, L.

  Filkin, L.

  Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

  Gale, B.

  Billingham, B.

  Gilbert, L.

  Blackstone, B.

  Goudie, B.

  Borrie, L.

  Gould of Potternewton, B.

  Bragg, L.

  Grabiner, L.

  Brennan, L.

  Graham of Edmonton, L.

  Brookman, L.

  Greengross, B.

  Burlison, L.

  Grenfell, L.

  Carter, L. [Teller]

  Harris of Haringey, L.

  Chandos, V.

  Harrison, L.

  Cohen of Pimlico, B.

  Haskel, L.

  David, B.

  Hayman, B.

  Davies of Coity, L.

  Hilton of Eggardon, B.

  Davies of Oldham, L.

  Hollis of Heigham, B.

  557

  Howells of St. Davids, B.

  Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

  Hughes of Woodside, L.

  Rendell of Babergh, B

  Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

  Renwick of Clifton, L.

  Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord Chancellor)

  Sainsbury of Turvilie, L.

  Sewel, L.

  Kennedy of The Shaws, B.

  Shepherd, L.

  Kirkhill, L.

  Simon, V.

  Lipscy, L.

  Simpson of Dunkeld, L.

  Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

  Stone of Blackheath, L.

  McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller]

  Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

  Taylor of Blackburn, L.

  Tomlinson, L.

  McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

  Turnberg, L.

  Mallalieu, B.

  Warner, L.

  Massey of Darwen, B.

  Whitaker, B.

  Nicol, B.

  Whitty, L.

  Pitkeathley, B.

  Woolmer of Leeds, L.

  Prys-Davies, L.

  Young of Old Scone, B.

  [*The Tellers for the Contents reported 78 votes; the Clerks recorded only 77 names.]
  Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
  Lord Bach: My Lords, I beg to move that consideration on Report be now adjourned. In moving the Motion I suggest that the Report stage begin again not before 8.57 p.m.
  Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

  National Health Service
  8 p.m.
  Lord Harris of Haringey Lord Harris of Haringey rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what arrangements will be made to ensure that, if community health councils are abolished as is envisaged in the National Health Service plan, the new arrangements for empowering National Health Service users and the new patient advocate and liaison service will be independent, and will be perceived as independent, of the local National Health Service structures.
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, in introducing this short debate, I should declare that I was director of the Association of Community Health Councils from 1987 to 1998. That experience has of course meant that I am as aware as anyone of both the strengths and the weaknesses of the current arrangements.
  It is perhaps worth reminding your Lordships that CHCs were established in 1974 to represent the public's interests in the health service. They are unique institutions. They comprise up to 24 members, and only a civil servant with a particularly bad hangover would have devised the detailed composition: half appointed by the locally elected councils for the area concerned; a third elected by local voluntary organisations; and the remaining sixth appointed by the regional offices of the NHS Executive.
  They are the only bodies in the health service which elect their own chair. They have a national body recognised in statute, and that in turn has a democratic governance structure. CHCs act as the independent patients' watchdog on every aspect of patients'
  558
  experience in the NHS. They have a legal right to be consulted by health authorities on major changes in the NHS and can refer major issues for decision to the Secretary of State. They represent the views of local communities in the planning of their local health services and monitor the quality of the services provided, using their rights to visit and inspect NHS premises.
  The best CHCs are highly effective in what they do. Plenty of examples can be cited where they have made health authorities or NHS trusts think again. At a local level in the NHS they fulfil the role commonly ascribed to your Lordships' House in respect of legislation from another place, requiring governments to think again and to review what they are proposing. They have tested proposals. No doubt that has inconvenienced over-eager managers. However, the consequence of the work of CHCs has been that proposals for change have been made more robust and health services are better as a result.
  Critically, they also support patients and carers who have complaints or concerns about the NHS. Locally, they are able to integrate the various strands of the work that they do, ensuring that the lessons learnt from monitoring and from complaints work informs their input into service planning. As a result, CHC members are often better informed about what is happening in local services than trust or health authority non-executives or even the managers responsible. On a national level, CHCs network so as to promote best practice and learn the lessons of the bad from across the country with the capacity to raise issues of wider concern with the Department of Health.
  All that work is now under threat. One line of the National Health Service plan proposes the abolition of CHCs. I am a great supporter of the NHS plan. Indeed, it was extremely widely welcomed in your Lordships' House and by those involved in the health service. It provides the means to modernise the service and genuinely to provide a better service to the public. Therefore, it is a pity that the plan is flawed in its proposals to involve patients.
  The plan proposes that a patient advocate and liaison service, to be known as PALS, in each NHS trust will assist patients and their families in resolving their concerns. Each trust will also establish a patients' forum and health authorities will appoint a citizens' advisory panel. Finally, local government will be given the power to scrutinise health services in their area and to take over the power of referring major changes to the Secretary of State.
  However, those arrangements have the effect of fragmenting the work of CHCs across a range of bodies. And it is difficult, if not impossible, to see how trends and issues will be picked up and integrated at local level, let alone regionally or nationally.
  Of even more concern is the fact that the new arrangements will not be independent of the local NHS. The independence of CHCs has been the key to their effectiveness. They are able to speak frankly in the interests of patients and the public. That is essential

  559
  in ensuring the confidence of individuals who may have complaints or who may simply want to express their views without feeling that any perceived criticism will affect adversely how the service treats them in the future.
  I believe that that is critically important. I am sure that my noble friend the Minister will make much of the new PALS service. I recall that in a former existence he was a great proponent of patient advocacy schemes based within hospitals. However, if such services are based within the service itself and are accountable to the chief executive of that service, they will neither be independent of the service nor, perhaps even more importantly, will they be perceived as independent by the people who will need to use it.
  I am sure that they will be useful as a type of customer relations trouble-shooter. Of course, in that respect the service in Brighton is cited as a beacon. It has done good work, although I am told that, because of staff sickness, the scheme has not been functioning for the past 10 months. However, in any event let us be clear that the new PALS will not provide a true advocacy service.
  As an illustration, one CHC chief officer told me of an incident earlier this week when a man came into the CHC office to inquire whether he could access his medical records to further his complaint against a local trust. The trust had told him that that was not possible because he was in the process of making a complaint against it. He was of course told, as was the trust, that that was nonsense. However, what confidence would that person have had in a so-called advocacy service based within that same trust?
  Similarly, the new patients' forums and advisory councils will not be truly independent. They will be hand-picked. The people likely to raise the most challenging issues will not be selected. And even if they are not hand-picked, the public are unlikely to have confidence in such an arrangement because the members are appointed by the authorities and trusts concerned.
  Moreover, the people who serve on the forums and panels will receive advice only from within the authority or trust concerned, and—let us be clear about this—they are unlikely to be advised to raise or push an issue that the authority or trust will find difficult. They will be provided only with information which is deemed appropriate and will certainly not be given the ammunition to be truly effective.
  Personally, I support the role envisaged for local authority scrutiny committees. At least for the Labour Party, the party whipping system does not apply on such committees. The proposal is a natural extension of the role of local councillors as community advocates. However, councillors will be effective in that role only if they are properly supported and knowledgeably and independently advised. Supported by the CHCs, local authority scrutiny committees would be formidable scrutineers of local NHS developments. Unsupported, they may end up being rudderless and uninformed.
  My time is nearly up. I am conscious that CHCs vary. Some are very good, a few are poor, and a handful are, frankly, dysfunctional. The most charitable explanation for the proposals contained in the NHS national plan is that CHCs need to be abolished in order to deal with the dysfunctional handful. If that truly is the explanation, there is a danger that all the good work will be lost as well.
  I have yet to hear anyone outside the Government support the proposals. They certainly cannot support them if the new arrangements are seen as not being independent of the local NHS and, what is more, there is no mechanism to integrate the lessons learnt from the various aspects of the work currently done by CHCs. Perhaps the Minister will tell me how many representations have been received supporting the Government's proposals in respect of CHCs and patient representation. Indeed, how many representations putting forward those ideas were received in the consultation that preceded the production of the national plan?
  However, if the removal of the dysfunctional is the most charitable explanation, the one that everyone will believe is that CHCs are being abolished because they are challenging, because they are an effective irritant and because they make people think. The abolition of CHCs will be seen as a nasty outbreak of Richmond House control-freakery and, as such, will detract from the excellence of the rest of the national plan.
  There is no need for that. Instead, let us ensure that the new arrangements are genuinely independent of local NHS structures and that robust mechanisms are in place to ensure that the various strands of work are integrated together effectively. If that means reinventing CHCs, so be it. But we should not throw away a vital mechanism that not only ensures a viable voice for service users in the new NHS but, as a result, delivers a better service because of the robust criticisms and the testing of proposals to all the many millions of people who rely on the NHS and who require an independent voice to represent their interests.
  8.10 p.m.
  Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, on initiating this debate. As a former director of the Association of Community Health Councils, there can be nobody who knows the inside workings of CHCs better than he does, although it may be that the Minister knows them quite well because I believe that he started his career as a chief officer of a CHC.
  My experience has been very much on the other side. I was chair of a district health authority which ran 16 hospitals and I was also chair of a regional health authority. Both those authorities have been the subject of some fairly acerbic criticism from CHCs. Not a comfortable experience but character-building.
  The noble Lord, Lord Harris, said that one argument for abolishing CHCs is that they are not all perfect; and of course, we know that that is true. As a regional chairman, I met regularly with the CHCs in

  561
  my region. I knew that their performance was variable and I believe that that is true today as well. But GPs, primary healthcare teams and hospitals are variable. Through their modernisation programme, the Government are determined to improve that variability, achieve consistency and make the performance better. So here is an opportunity not for the abolition of CHCs but for strengthening and modernising them.
  The commission on the NHS, chaired by Will Hutton, which I think is a brilliant piece of work, shows how that can be done. Indeed, there was an extremely interesting debate the other evening at the King's Fund on his proposals which found a large measure of agreement.
  I have no doubt that in replying to this debate, the Minister will say how very committed the Government are to involving patients and the public in the NHS. That is a principle which I strongly endorse. In my report, Neighbourhood Nursing, which is now 14 years old, I advocated the setting up of local healthcare associations. They were to influence policy and to monitor primary care because the CHCs did not have any locus in that area. So the principle is absolutely right; it is the Government's method which is wrong.
  To kick out an uncomfortable bedfellow because he or she is awkward is a sign of weakness. It is a sign of an Administration who are increasingly centralist, controlling and not sufficiently secure to brook independent criticism. I believe that a plan which neatly removes all the difficult decisions, like hospital closures, from the Secretary of State to a faceless panel, is quite cowardly and a negation of duty.
  In the NHS plan, the Government have fragmented the previous powers and responsibilities of the CHCs so effectively that they have made the system impotent. I could go through the proposals one by one. PALS will be just that—hired, fired and paid for by the trusts, so they will have to be pally. The Independent Local Advisory Forum is a mere sounding board with no teeth. The patients fora are blinkered, as they will see only the trust's position and will not be able to view, for example, how limited access to out-of-hours GPs affects the A&E departments. I do not share the enthusiasm of the noble Lord, Lord Harris, for the local authority scrutiny panels. I started my career in local government and I have been extremely sad to see its role diminished. But in this case, the scrutiny which comes through the local authority will be neutered through the whipping system. But worse—and this worries me much more—that may jeopardise the joint working and future establishment of care trusts.
  My time is up so I shall ask just a few questions. Under the new arrangements, how can local communities hold the Secretary of State to account? Is there to be consultation on the criteria permitting referral on major change? Will councillors sign a code of conduct on political impartiality? How will patients or relatives who wish to complain access competent, truly independent support in doing so? Finally, are the proposals to be carried through on a negative order without proper consultation?
  8.14 p.m.
  Baroness Barker: My Lords, I too thank the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, for giving us this most welcome opportunity to debate what I believe is a very substantial flaw in the NHS plan; namely, a fundamental confusion within the plan about what the patient advocate and liaison service is intended to do.
  It may be useful if I were to bring to your Lordships attention a definition of advocacy which was drawn up some years ago by the Institute of Public Policy Research and the members of a number of leading voluntary organisations, including the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley:
  "Citizens Advocacy is a one-to-one ongoing partnership between a trained advocate and a person who is not in a strong position to exercise or defend his or her rights, and is at risk of being maltreated or excluded. The citizen advocate must be free of conflicts of interest with those providing services to their partner and should represent the interests of their partner as if they were their own".
  I offer that definition because nowhere in the NHS plan is advocacy actually defined. I believe that what has been proposed in the NHS plan is a confusion between three different aspects: information, support and advocacy or representation.
  The new PALS system is described variously on pages 91 and 92 in terms of information, facilitation, negotiation and support for complainants. But those are very different matters which require very different skills. There is a significant difference between a service which eases the path of hospital patients through an organisation's structures and services and one which enhances and supports the ability of people—patients, families and carers—to negotiate the wider NHS, an understanding of their rights as users and their ability to obtain redress if things go wrong.
  PALS appears to deal only with patients in hospital, not patients in primary or rehabilitative care. Such patients usually need the following things. First, they need practical information about the services of a hospital in easily accessible formats. They need information about aftercare, benefits and adaptations.
  If the proposed system is to work, the integrity of the information which is provided must be assured. There must be no conflict of interest by dint of those responsible being employed by the hospital.
  Secondly, patients need support. Lots of patients just need a bit of help to get simple things done. Reading the plan, I believe that that is what the Secretary of State really intended this proposal to achieve. But that is not advocacy. I am not being pedantic here. We are talking about a major structural change on a basis which is wholly unclear.
  Here is a tremendous need for advocacy. I cite one example—language difficulties. Many patients suffer simply because of language difficulties. In certain boroughs in London, more than 130 languages are spoken. I cannot see how one hospital or one NHS facility can meet that sort of need. And yet there is

  563
  scant mention in the plan about the organisations which have that expertise; namely, voluntary organisations.
  I have two questions for the Minister. First, why is there no mention in the plan about national standards and criteria for evaluation of the PALS system? Secondly, if the Minister accepts the need for independence and the advocacy skills which exist outside the NHS, is there a case for going down a route similar to that of the community legal service and establishing an NHS advocacy standard to which a number of groups, which prove that they are up to the required standard, could bid to provide that service?
  The major flaw is that this does not cover general practice or even PCTs. By far the largest number of incidents in the NHS are in the community services. Will the proposals for PALS and patient forums ever reach down to that level, which is the level at which most people experience the NHS?
  In conclusion, I do not think that what is on offer is PALS. It is PILS—a patient information liaison service. If the Minister's department really wants advocacy, then the voluntary and statutory sectors will need to be "PALS" together.
  8.19 p.m.
  Lord Rea: My Lords, the NHS has never been a very democratic organisation and when the last vestige of local authority control went, along with the medical officers of health in the 1973 Act, the community health councils were created in part to compensate for that deficit. They have held the fort for 26 years against a trend towards increasing top-down control on an extremely limited budget.
  I am delighted that the NHS plan proposes to begin to reverse the trend of centralism. Each CHC usually has only one executive secretary or chief officer, with some clerical help and very modest premises. Nevertheless, they have had notable local successes. They act as patient advocates, similar to the proposed PALS or PILS—one can think of PILS meaning something else too—but their main achievements have come from their ability to contribute to the planning and implementation of local services. That is because it is the statutory duty of health authorities and trusts to consult community health councils on proposed changes and to represent the views and needs of their local population.
  By having a "shop front", CHCs are easily accessible. Through listening to the problems brought to them, as well as to the often expert views of their members, CHCs are able to help health authorities and trusts to fine tune their services to the needs of their community. Those successes can range, for example, from the provision of a care and occupation centre for young adults with learning difficulties to the creation of a small community hospital for low dependency patients in a deprived neighbourhood. Both those examples come from Lambeth, just across the river. It is interesting that in neither of those cases was health service money initially involved but local social
  564
  services and education committees in the first example and the Department of the Environment, through an inner-city regeneration programme, in the second.
  Because of their independence, CHCs can mobilise funding from different branches of local and central government as well as from the voluntary sector. In Lambeth the CHC facilitated joined-up government long before it became a trendy catchphrase. These particular gains were small in themselves but, accumulating throughout the country, CHCs have helped to create a more caring and cost-effective service. Among the plethora of organisations looking after the interests of patients which are mentioned in chapter 10 of the NHS plan there is no provision for a body with the independent, proactive role which the CHCs have. They also represent whole communities rather than advocate the needs of particular citizens. In paragraph 10.27 CHCs are castigated as being unelected. However, the all-party scrutiny committees of local authorities which are proposed will consist of councillors with many other duties, while CHC members have a dedicated role in looking after the health interests of their communities.
  I hope very much that my noble friend will be able to explain why community health councils were not consulted before the NHS plan was published, and that the sentence in paragraph 10.35 which states that "CHCs will be abolished" will be replaced by a sentence which includes the words, "CHCs will be strengthened". It does not matter very much if they continue with their name. The name perhaps might be changed but the function, status and expertise of the CHCs should be preserved. If the Government want guidance as to how CHCs could be preserved and strengthened, they have only to look at the appendix in Will Hutton's report on the Health Commission entitled Life for Health.
  8.24 p.m.
  Baroness Pitkeathley: My Lords, I too thank the noble Lord, Lord Harris, and declare an interest, not only as a long time champion of user and carer recognition in health and social care but also once upon a time as chief officer of a community health council.
  I have much admired the work of CHCs and also the work of the Association of Community Health Councils for England and Wales, of which the noble Lord, Lord Harris, was a much respected chief executive for many years. Fan though I am of CHCs, we must acknowledge, as other noble Lords have done, that they vary tremendously in the quality of work they do and in their effectiveness. As we know, the reasons for that variability are many, but we have to acknowledge that such variations exist.
  Moreover, CHCs are now 25 years old and it is entirely right that the role and function they perform on behalf of patients is reviewed. I do not want to argue tonight necessarily for the retention of CHCs but rather to emphasise the importance of ensuring that the patient voice in the NHS is as strong as

  565
  possible and to give examples of factors which must be taken into account when any new arrangements are being considered.
  Perhaps I may acknowledge the huge progress which has been made in recognising patients' needs in recent years. No one can possibly pretend that when it was set up the NHS put patients first. But today the experience of patients and their families is valued. Even since 1974 when CHCs were established, the culture around recognising the importance of patients has changed radically.
  Any system for improving patient experience of the NHS must first and foremost concentrate on empowering patients and making them feel centrally involved in their own health care. Public advocacy is therefore absolutely crucial. The Government must be sure that any new arrangements they consider will strengthen, not weaken, that advocacy function. In addition, as we have heard many times, one of the criticisms of CHCs is their variability, so we must not make that problem worse. I am all in favour of allocating more power to patient organisations which are run by patients, but clarity is needed about how they will relate to the NHS and to each other. This argues too for some kind of national structure or body to oversee the new system.
  Next, I should like to emphasise the importance of relating to primary care, as other noble Lords have done, as well as to trusts. As the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, reminded us, that is where most people experience the NHS. Again, the functions of the CHCs or any other body must be reviewed and care taken to ensure that primary care is not only included but given complete recognition as the most important interface between patients and the NHS.
  Concerns have been expressed regarding local authority involvement in the proposed new arrangements. That concern usually revolves around the politicisation of patient advocacy and complaints procedures. But that could work to advantage, particularly if we think about the overlap between health and social care which is so important. We are beginning to see evidence of the Berlin Wall coming down, and that could help. Above all, we must ensure that the new arrangements are not only independent but seen by patients to be independent.
  I am also concerned that so far there has been no mention of statutory rights for the new bodies. That must be addressed. Notwithstanding the more favourable and sympathetic climate in which we now operate in regard to patients' rights, we must ensure that sufficient power is vested in any new arrangements to enable the voice of patients to be as strong as possible.
  8.28 p.m.
  Lord Greaves: My Lords, not for the first time in my life, I find myself rising to support most of the eloquent case put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey. I speak as a former member of the Burnley, Pendle and Rossendale Community Health Council. Perhaps I may also apologise in advance to the
  566
  Minister and the House. I have to catch a train and, with the present state of services, I may have to leave before the Minister sits down. If I have to do that, I promise that I shall carefully read Hansard.
  This is not the first time that central government have tried to abolish community health councils. The last time it was the Tories. One questions where these ideas, which do not appear in manifestos, come from. We all know the answer. Why is it happening? CHCs are relatively cheap. Considering the job they do, they are very cheap. They are usually representative of the local community. However, as noble Lords have said, they are varied in what they do and how they do it. I refer not only to the quality of what they do but the nature of what they choose to do in response to the circumstances as they see them. To some extent, therefore, they are seen as being untidy and messy by people who would prefer them to be a much more uniform management tool within the health service.
  Community health councils provide a wide range of information and advice and have the ability to look at health problems as a whole, including outside the narrow confines of the health service. They have the ability to look across the National Health Service at community services, hospital services and the rest, and bring them together. That is something in which the new proposals appear to be deficient.
  Community health councils are able to challenge local management; sometimes they challenge national politicians. And they do so in public. As the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, said, that can be uncomfortable for those being challenged. But it is crucial and central to the whole nature of democracy. And if sometimes they embarrass or are seen to be running campaigns, that is all to the good.
  I have examples of some of the reports produced by my local community health council, Burnley, Pendle and Rossendale. One is a report on Choices in Maternity Care for Women. It was produced on the basis of finding out what those in the community, particularly mothers, wanted. A report the previous year had been on the subject of Team Midwifery. A recent report dealt with cardiology services for Burnley, Pendle and Rossendale, which has some of the highest incidence of heart disease in the country.
  Those reports are not untypical but probably unique as a selection of what a specific community health council does. That is the nature of the beast. The problem is that the role of community health councils is in many ways a political role; not a party political role; not a capital "P" political role. That is what managers in the health service are often less than comfortable with.
  A good friend of mine, a chief executive of a community health council in the West Midlands, asked me to put this question: do we really think that any of the proposed successor bodies will act as advocate for a public view that is known to be highly unpopular with the powers that be? That is the crunch of this debate.

  567
  A government that tries to abolish CHCs will find that the councils have a great deal of hidden support in the community and they will find it politically difficult. If they are sensible, they will listen to what noble Lords are saying tonight and reconsider their plans.
  8.32 p.m.
  Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I too am grateful to my noble friend Lord Harris of Haringey for raising this issue and pay tribute to his work with community health councils.
  Noble Lords may recall that I am chairman of a health authority and have just completed consultations on primary care trusts, a mental health and learning disability trust and the merger of two health authorities. All that has been done with the support of the community health councils across Hertfordshire and I nominated my own community health council for a public involvement award. I trust that it found dealing with me as character-building an experience as I found dealing with its members.
  Like many colleagues in the health service, I was sorry that the demise of community health councils was heralded in the NHS plan document. I say that not because I am a huge fan of the present structure of community health councils, but because I am a huge fan of those who spend many thousands of hours volunteering in their local communities and I worry about any messages that might lower their morale.
  There is a real need to overhaul the way in which the health service interacts with its patients, carers and its local community. That is especially true at a time when the drivers for change in health demand a radical rethink of our structures, resources and our pathways of care. I support the need for radical change. But I am also conscious of the need to preserve what works and, more importantly, to understand why it works.
  Independence, real and perceived, is what gives any structure in any area credibility. Those who go to advocates must believe that they will receive impartial, confidential advice and support. And we need to retain that first and foremost in any patient advocacy and liaison service. We also need to consider what gives the patient the reassurance of independence.
  For example, as many noble Lords said, while there is a need to look at a service being on site at hospitals, we need to be careful that "on site" does not mean taking away their independence. Those offering support and advice will need to be seen to be separate and impartial, especially when advising whether or not to pursue a complaint. It is easy to see that some patients would prefer the site to be away from the hospital which provided their care.
  How organisations are funded is often the big give away when deciding on impartiality. As with other advocacy services, funding has to be separately provided and distributed without reference to the NHS organisations locally, and it must be ring-fenced. The service needs a formal and national structure, capable of lobbying on its own behalf for more resources or changes in its role. It needs clear
  568
  mechanisms to ensure that information it provides about service care is fed not just to the local organisations but also nationally to identify patterns and areas for attention.
  I believe—and this is where, in my experience, community health councils have faced the greatest challenge—that perceptions of independence need to go hand in hand with the importance of representation. I cannot speak for other community health councils, but I know those with whom I am most closely associated have found it difficult to attract younger members and members from ethnic minorities. It is important that, where we give a leading role to lay organisations, we ensure that they are able to represent and obtain the views of their communities.
  My final point concerns local government. The relationship between local government and health is in a very important phase. As a strong advocate of joined-up thinking, I am extremely hopeful that the partnerships we have in place between social care and healthcare, and education and health will offer real benefit to our clients. I have no difficulty in responding to local government and discussing plans with them, in fact I do so regularly. But I am concerned about how we will make sure that the views of local government on strategic healthcare changes are truly independent and do not reflect the political persuasion of any local authority.
  In Hertfordshire we have differing political views, and that is just among the labour councils. Some councils are opposed to fundholding; some now oppose primary care trusts. We need to ensure that at least we do not lose time, if nothing else, because we are caught up in a party political debate prior to an election. That point needs serious attention. Suffice to say, whatever system we put in place must be at least as good as the system we had previously and must pay tribute to those who have worked so hard in community health councils.
  8.37 p.m.
  Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, as someone who has not sat on a CHC, I can say that we have had some notably well-informed speeches tonight. It was interesting that even those who are not wholly opposed to the Government's proposals would probably need to reinvent CHCs in order to put into effect their own proposals.
  The fact is that after 26 years of useful life, community health councils could have expected rather more consideration from a Labour government, many of whose members, like the noble Lord, Lord Harris, have links with them. We heard that from many noble Lords on the Benches opposite. Also we must thank the noble Lord, Lord Harris, for raising an extremely important issue.
  The reference to abolition of CHCs is almost an afterthought in the "Changes for Patients" chapter of the national plan. It is not difficult to unpick the proposals. The scrutiny role goes to local government, but there will be a potential conflict of interest with the increasing integration of health and social services.

  569
  There is also the question of how their boundaries will fit with hospital trusts. The consultation role goes to the patients' forums, but will be dependent on the good will of the hospital trust. How well will they be supported in terms of resources?
  The advocacy role will go to patients' advocacy and liaison services, but they will not be independent. The complaints role will probably go to CABs, but how will they develop the specialist expertise? All that will take place without any indication in the national plan of the resources to be allocated or the training to be given in the new roles.
  The Government's proposals generated considerable heat within my party, and were described as "fragmented" and "ill-conceived" at our recent conference in Bournemouth. The truth is that we need to integrate the various roles, not fragment them. For example, complaints help to inform scrutiny and consultation. There may well be patterns of behaviour in complaints. To discern patterns, there needs to be overview by a single local body. It is rather ironic that the national plan talks about patient empowerment and then proceeds to abolish CHCs.
  Of course, community health councils are sometimes awkward customers, but that is their merit. Independence is their key asset, as the noble Lord, Lord Harris, pointed out, especially in making complaints. They are not part of the medical establishment. No reasoned case has been made out for abolition; it is simply tagged on to the end of a chapter of the national plan. It would be better to look at some of the proposals put forward by the commission on the NHS chaired by Will Hutton in its report, New Life for Health, which we debated—thanks again to the noble Lord, Lord Harris—in June. It did not deny that CHCs had their problems. There is no legal indemnity for its members and no adequate definition of the variations in health services which entitle them to be consulted. There are differences in availability and commitment of their members, variable standards and unlimited statutory rights as health services have changed, particularly in primary care and community services.
  At the end of the day, however, the commission said that there needs to be more accountability in the NHS, not less. It suggested greater powers for CHCs, not their abolition. On Tuesday, the Secretary of State said that people have long argued that there is a democratic deficit at the heart of the NHS. That is perfectly true, but we on these Benches do not believe that abolishing the one body which currently carries out independent scrutiny is the way to cure the deficit. I prefer what his predecessor, Mr Dobson, said in 1998:
  "I look to CHCs to continue to play a role in ensuring that patient and public views are known to the NHS decision makers both nationally and locally".
  I wonder which of those quotations the Minister prefers.
  We should follow the example of the Welsh Assembly in seeking not to abolish CHCs but to make them more effective. The answer is not abolition; we need to ensure that they have adequate powers and
  570
  resources. At the end of the day, the abolition of the CHCs will require primary legislation. It will have to be very different from the proposals in the national plan if it is to receive support from these Benches.
  8.41 p.m.
  Earl Howe: My Lords, I should like first to express my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Harris, for initiating this debate. I hope he will share my perception that the concerns that he has so clearly expressed are widely held both inside and outside the NHS. However, in many respects, the NHS plan is a document full of plans and aspirations with which we can all readily agree. If I had to single out the section which gives me the greatest personal grief it is that which announced the new patient advocacy service.
  Community health councils have been with us for 26 years. Depending on where you go around the country, you hear different opinions of the job they do. In some areas, the CHC is not regarded as being particularly effective. In others, such as the one near my home in the Chilterns, for example, they are highly thought of and seen as performing a useful role. But even if the way that CHCs have worked has been variable, one thing is agreed upon by everyone; the concept of CHCs is sound. A watchdog for patients keeps the NHS on its toes. And if it is to mean anything, such an organisation must be independent of the NHS and able to exercise the legal right to be heard and consulted. Without those features it will not command the confidence of the public.
  Of course it would be odd if, after 26 years, we could not identify any scope for changing or improving CHCs but what we certainly should not do is scrap them without being sure that the arrangements we put in their place retain the features of CHCs which we all value. At this stage I suspect that I am not alone in not knowing exactly how the proposed new structures will function and interact with each other.
  What strikes you immediately when you read the NHS plan is that the functions of CHCs are to be divided up between a number of different bodies. That fragmentation is bound to mean that no single body will be able to take an overview of the broader patterns which emerge from individual complaints or from problems which come to light in the provision of services. Still less will it be possible to do what the ACHCHW does so valuably at the moment in looking at failures in the system from a national perspective and feeding its views to government. From the point of view of an individual patient, it may often mean having to seek help from a number of different bodies instead of just one. That does not seem the way to achieve greater patient empowerment. Empowerment of patients depends ultimately on rights enshrined in law. At the moment, CHCs have the right to be consulted, the right to require information from health authorities, the right to inspect and report on hospital facilities and others, and the right to refer contested plans to the Secretary of State for Health. 'Those rights are valuable levers. It is all very well the NHS plan stating that patients' forums and independent

  571
  advisory forums will act as "sounding boards" but what does that really amount to? It looks to me like a dilution of rights, not a strengthening of rights.
  On an individual patient level, the role of an advocate presupposes a degree of genuine detachment from the organisation being criticised. I do not believe that if PALS are employed by the trusts and situated on hospital premises patients will view them as truly independent. Advocates worthy of the name must be free of any conflicts of interest, either real of perceived. They have to be in a position to take the initiative in providing support and advice and to do battle on behalf of the patient. Again, PALS seem to be a step down from present arrangements.
  I refrain from attributing any motives to Ministers for the changes they have announced. I simply say to the Minister, with considerable regret, that I believe these proposals to be a mistake. I hope that the Government will find it possible to think again.
  8.46 p.m.
  Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, first, I thank my noble friend Lord Harris for having raised the issue and instituted an interesting debate. He led the Association of Community Health Councils with great distinction for a number of years. I have always enjoyed listening to his views about the future of patient representation and public involvement in the NHS. As the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, suggested, in early 1975 I was one of the first CHC secretaries to be appointed and I found the experience extraordinarily valuable. It certainly gave me enormous insights into a wide area of NHS endeavour.
  There is no doubt that back in 1974 they were a radical step for the NHS. Never before had the NHS been required to take account of patients' views in a systematic way. There is no doubt that we owe much to the sterling work of CHC staff and members over the years. I acknowledge, as much as my noble friends Lord Rea and Lady Ashton, the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, the many achievements of CHCs since their establishment in 1974–75. The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, mentioned work in relation to maternity services. I well remember conducting a survey on those services in Edgware/Hendon in the mid-1970s and I believe that it had a real impact in changing the views of the people running them.
  Therefore, there is no doubt that we can find excellent examples of work which CHCs have done and continue to do. Nor should we deny that there are examples where CHCs have not done so well. We have heard about the variable performance and my noble friend Lord Harris has acknowledged the strengths and weaknesses of CHCs. If I were to make a judgment about their achievements over 25 years, I do not believe that they have made a sufficient impact on the way in which the health service operates in terms of being sensitive to the needs of patients and the public.
  That is why, in the context of our radical reforms of the NHS, as in the NHS plan, we have decided against reforming the existing system and have seized this
  572
  opportunity to build a new system of patient representation and involvement. My noble friend Lord Harris referred to something completely unknown to me; that is, Richmond House freakery. That is not, as some have suggested, about getting rid of irritating CHCs which are causing problems to grey-suited managers in the NHS. Frankly, I could not stand here before your Lordships if that were the case. The fact is that our proposals are designed to do better than we have achieved in the past 25 years. I readily accept that that is the test we face in putting forward these proposals.
  I also accept the challenge of my noble friend Lady Pitkeathley to do better. I believe that we can do better both nationally and locally. At national level we have made it clear that one third of the members of the NHS modernisation board, which will help us drive through changes in the NHS, will be representatives of patient groups and frontline staff. At national level we shall ensure that, for the first time, the Commission for Health Improvement and the National Institute for Clinical Excellence, which have such crucial roles to play in the high quality service that we need to offer in future, have patient representation. So it is at local level. I believe that the combined effect of PALS, the forums which will be present in every trust and the local authority scrutiny role will be to provide a much stronger voice for the public and patients than at present, and that is how we wish the proposals to be judged.
  My noble friend Lord Harris rightly said that I am a very strong advocate of PALS. I have seen the system operate in the US and have been very impressed by the ability of patients to have direct and immediate access to people who can act on their behalf and deal with problems there and then, not via a system that takes time to operate and goes through many procedures. At present, if an NHS patient is unhappy with the service he or she receives, whether it relates to food or facilities, or the patient does not understand what is happening, or there are issues to do with the provision of clinical services, it is not clear whom the patient can approach for help and advice. We know that many patients simply suffer in silence. Some feel so strongly that they complain but often only after the event, in which case the opportunity to address the situation as it arises is lost.
  The whole point of PALS is that in future patients and their carers will be able to contact the service based in each trust. From my experience of the practice in the US, those members who are part of PALS will have direct access to the chief executive, with power to negotiate immediate solutions, where appropriate. They will also be able to put the patient and his or her carers in touch with other bodies that may be able to help, such as patient support groups or, as has already been mentioned, CABs, for assistance with formal complaints.
  My noble friend Lady Ashton and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, referred to the independence of PALS. I well recognise the issues that that raises. Our aim in developing PALS is to ensure that services respond and change to meet the needs of patients. We

  573
  are convinced that to achieve that PALS will need to be based in trusts and have the necessary clout to achieve change. I assure noble Lords that currently we are consulting patient groups and CHCs and drawing on the experience of trusts which already operate a scheme of this kind before we decide by whom the PALS should be employed. We are also consulting on the extent of its remit, and, in answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, when it may be appropriate for PALS to refer people to other sources of advice and support. I assure the House that our decision will be based on what is best for patients.
  Alongside PALS we propose that every trust, including those involved in primary care, should have a patients' forum made up of patients and their representatives who will have power to visit premises to check on standards. That forum will elect one of its number to be a non-executive director on the board of the trust. I believe that that will put patients and their needs at the heart of decision making.
  The third leg of our proposals relates to the role of local authorities. We propose that major planning decisions will be scrutinised by local authority all-party scrutiny committees, with power to refer those decisions to the new independent reconfiguration panel which will review and advise the Secretary of State on contested decisions. I believe that that is one of the most important proposals that we have put forward. I agree that since 1948 the democratic deficit has always been a problem in the NHS within the context of a national service. This system enables democratically elected local government to play a strong role in future decisions relating to the NHS, and I believe that that is to be warmly welcomed. It will strengthen the process and the connection between the health service and local people. The suggestion of the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, about a code of conduct is an interesting one. I can assure the noble Baroness that as we take forward these ideas we shall have discussions with the Local Government Association.
  I was asked about funding by my noble friend Lady Ashton. We propose total funding of about £33 million per annum. A further £10 million of new money has been set aside to contribute to the new arrangements, alongside the budget of £23 million which will be freed up when community health councils are abolished. The noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, asked me about affirmative and negative orders. That is a matter for primary legislation which will be debated in your Lordships' House in due course.
  I believe that I have answered the question about primary care. The system relates as much to primary care as to other parts of the service. I also agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, about national standards. That matter will be discussed with interested parties in the next few weeks.
  I accept that issues to do with the definition of "advocates" need to be carefully considered. We do not intend that PALS should replace existing advocacy services. The incredibly valuable advocacy services which are now available need to continue and be supported. We want to draw on expertise within the
  574
  existing CHC community. During the next few weeks we shall hold stakeholder meetings to discuss issues with, and hear contributions from, CHCs, voluntary organisations and patient groups.
  Both the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, suggested that we are making these changes because CHCs are awkward customers or they keep the NHS on its toes. That is not the reason. We believe that the proposals will lead to a much more effective system in which patients and the public have a bigger say in what is happening to their health service. Problems will be dealt with as they arise when people are either in hospital or are receiving primary and community care services.
  When we first talked to NHS managers who believed that CHCs might be abolished they might have been tempted to throw their hats in the air. However, when we explained the impact that PALS, local scrutiny committees and forums in trust would have the smile quickly disappeared from their faces. They recognise that what we put forward is a much more powerful and effective system of patient and public representation than we have now. In so doing, we wish to draw on the enormous contributions which CHCs have made so far; and many people who are now involved in CHCs will be extremely valuable in the context of some of the services which will replace them.
  This has been a most interesting debate. I am sure that when legislation in this area comes before your Lordships' House—we do not know when—we shall spend many more hours debating these issues.

  Transport Bill
  9 p.m.
  Further consideration of amendments on Report resumed.
  Clause 65 [Interpretation]:
  [Amendments Nos. 71 and 72 not moved.]
  Clause 66 [Air navigation: directions]:
  Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment. N o. 73:
  Page 44, line 6, leave out subsection (2).
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 73, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 80 and 81. My noble friend Lord Goschen will speak to Amendments Nos. 75 and 76. The Minister doubtless will be pleased to know that this is the final group of amendments in the first part of the Bill, dealing with air traffic control. We turn now to Chapter III, which deals with air navigation.
  Amendment No. 73 seeks to leave out subsection (2) of Clause 66. The subsection deprives anyone injured by the CAA's failure to carry out any duty imposed on it by the Secretary of State of any right of action against the CAA. The amendment restores such a right of action.
  It is a basic right that those injured by the failures of a public body should be compensated. If the Secretary of State considers the matter important enough to give

  575
  a direction, then it is important enough for those injured by the CAA's failure to comply to have a remedy. It is difficult to see the difference between the words "failure to carry out a duty" and "an act or omission in the exercise of performing air navigation functions".
  When we aired the amendment at the Committee stage, the Government claimed that the CAA may take a course of action in implementing a direction which is satisfactory to the Secretary of State but perceived by an individual or organisation as failing to meet the duty placed on the CAA by a direction. I regard that reply as rather weak. It is not a matter of whether an individual or organisation perceives a failure to perform a duty; it is a matter of whether the CAA has failed to perform that duty. If it has, it should be accountable for such failure, not only to the Secretary of State, but also to anyone who suffered as a result of such a failure.
  Our second amendment, Amendment No. 80, seeks to leave out subsection (7) of Clause 75. That subsection enables the CAA to charge an operator for services it does not want and does not use, even if, indeed, its aircraft cannot use them. The amendment removes that power. At Committee stage the Government claimed that aircraft might benefit from the services provided, such as maintenance of minimum separation distances, even if they failed to contact air traffic control. In these circumstances they would be using the services and would be caught by the charging provisions. Where services are genuinely not used, there is no reason why the operator in question should be charged for them. We submit that that charge would be an abuse of the CAA's monopoly position.
  Our final amendment, Amendment No. 81, seeks to remove paragraph (a) of Clause 83(2). The paragraph enables the Secretary of State to authorise detention of aircraft in respect of which default on payments occurs, even if the defaulter has sold the aircraft on. The amendment removes that power. The effect of the paragraph could be grossly unfair. How is the buyer of an aircraft to know whether there has been a default on payment in respect of that particular plane without some system of public registration of defaults relating to aircraft? Someone who buys an aircraft in good faith without notice of the default should not have to pay the previous defaulting owner's penalty. The CAA should take appropriate steps to secure payment by the defaulter.
  In comparison with other amendments debated today these amendments may be considered to be trivial, but they are important and the points they raise need to be answered by the Government. I beg to move.
  Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I have two amendments, Amendments Nos. 75 and 76, in this group. They are entirely unconnected with the other amendments in the group, but, in the spirit which I am sure the Minister will show towards my amendments, I am more than content for them to be contained in this somewhat diverse group.
  576
  The amendments seek to strengthen the Bill with regard to the fair treatment of air space users and to prevent any discrimination against what might be considered the little people of the industry—general aviation.
  At the Committee stage of the Bill we discussed the same issues. The Minister was generous in his assurances that the Government valued general aviation and indeed wished to see its position protected within the Bill. I am an occasional private flyer so I have an interest to declare in this matter.
  Amendment No. 76 has the effect of making clear that the CAA has a general duty towards not only the operators and owners of all classes of aircraft, but also towards all classes of air space user. This is an argument I had with the Minister at Committee stage. I got nowhere at all with him at that stage. He then was kind enough to write me a carefully considered letter, with which I did not agree, showing that he had listened even more carefully and we still had not got anywhere. I shall have a final attempt to explain to him and to see whether I can get him to agree that merely saying that one should take into account the requirements of all categories of all aircraft could leave some people out in the cold. The tone of the Minister's response at the time, and indeed of his letter, made it very clear that we actually had one and the same objective. So we are really talking about drafting at this stage.
  Categories of aircraft vary from the very smallest—gliders through to small single or twin-engined aircraft—to the very largest commercial airliners. It must also be recognised that pilots vary in their qualifications, from student pilots at the bottom of the ladder up to the holders of air transport pilot's licences, such as my noble friend Lord Trefgarne, who is a very experienced aviator.
  I am concerned that the Bill could have the effect of stating that the CAA must have a general duty towards all the groups who operate aircraft. However, some people might be left out. I shall give an example to try to focus the Minister's attention. If he can reassure me on this point, I shall be a much happier and less loquacious Peer of the Realm.
  Let us consider the example of a private pilot who has no instrument rating. Airspace could be classified in such a way as to require all people who fly in that piece of airspace to have an instrument rating to fly under instrument flight rules. He can fly under instrument flight rules in any aeroplane, other than a permit-to-fly aeroplane, that is so equipped with all the necessary navigational equipment. Under those circumstances, it could be said that the CAA had taken on board its duty towards the owners and operators of all categories of aircraft. However, it would not have taken on its duty towards all types of airspace user because there could be, for example, student pilots who definitely would not have an IFR rating. I look forward to the Minister's response on that point.
  Amendment No. 75 merely adds reinforcement to what is already in the Bill. The amendment makes it clear that access to airspace is a fundamental requirement for the general aviation community. Many

  577
  aspects of the Bill have been welcomed by the GA community but there has been concern—rightful concern—that when the transfer is made to the new company the rights of the less powerful users of airspace and the more fragmented users of airspace, on whom we rely for new pilots coming up through the system to fulfil the requirements of our aviation industry, will not properly be looked after. Therefore, my amendment adds some words to make it clear that access to airspace is a very important issue.
  I am sure the Minister's brief says that the words are otiose and that the point is already covered. If the Minister could be specific in his response and could underline that access to airspace is a fundamental requirement and one that is borne in mind by the drafting of the Bill, then again I should be much more satisfied.
  My third and final point is simple. In Committee some of my noble friends and I raised the question of the Civil Aviation Authority's powers with regard to the new National Air Traffic Service PPP company in terms, first, of the design and allocation of airspace and, secondly, of giving the CAA the teeth it needs to ensure that those matters are enforced. Examples were quoted of some minor difficulties that have recently occurred under the existing system. This is a good moment to pay tribute to the work of the CAA and NATS for allocating airspace in an extremely fair manner. The CAA is a very efficient organisation and we hope that that will be carried forward.
  In Committee the Minister referred to the duties that are given to the CAA under Clause 70 of the Bill. The Minister has amended the clause by adding an additional and welcome overarching or paramount, to use the noble Lord's least favourite word, safety requirement. The Minister also referred to the consultation being taken forward by the CAA. Can the noble Lord now tell us the results of that consultation? Can he assure the House that the CAA, through the amendment of the air navigation order, will now have the strong and proper powers it requires to direct the new NATS body to administer airspace in the way that the CAA thinks fit and appropriate, bearing in mind its general duty? If the noble Lord can reassure me on those points, we will have moved the argument on considerably and the Bill will be more equitable.
  Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I very much sympathise with the views of my noble friend Lord Goschen in regard to this matter. As I said at an earlier stage when we were discussing these issues, I am president of the Popular Flying Association, which is far and away the largest recreational aviation organisation in this country. It has upwards of 10,000 members, many of whom own and operate their own small aircraft. But my views and the views of the PFA are not confined to that association. They are widely held, I believe, by other members of the general aviation fraternity, who feel profoundly threatened by some of the proposals that have come forward. They feel threatened not so much by the proposals themselves—we have no difficulty in principle with the privatisation of NATS—but by some of the things that have been said.
  578
  I believe that the Civil Aviation Authority will exercise its powers in a responsible and effective way, having due regard to the interests of general aviation. However, I am not so sure that those currently heading NATS are quite so enthusiastic. For example, I have been informed that the business development manager of NATS, Mr Peter Finch, was recently quoted as saying that he regarded those who represent general aviation interests as, "public enemy No. 1". Those were his words. Apparently, he felt that the need to look after the interests of general aviation would somehow inhibit the development of NATS in the direction he thought appropriate. If that is true, that was a disgraceful remark and I hope that the noble Lord can tell me, if he did make such a comment, that it was made without authority.
  That leads to another matter of direct importance to general aviation; namely, the question of the operation of flights outside controlled airspace. We have heard — again from the aforementioned Mr Finch—that NATS would like to impose charges on general aviation aircraft flying outside controlled airspace. I hope that that is not the policy of NATS. If it is, I hope that the Civil Aviation Authority will see to it that such charges are not imposed.
  From what I have said, noble Lords will appreciate that there are concerns that the CAA will find it difficult to defend the interests of general aviation against the battalions of NATS if these changes come into force. I therefore have great sympathy with the amendments proposed by my noble friend Lord Goschen. The plain fact is that general aviation has the same rights in airspace as does anyone else. General aviators pay their taxes and they, too, pay whatever charges are currently levied. For those reasons, they are just as entitled to use the airspace as all others.
  However, we are sometimes told that commercial flights, however small or insignificant, should have priority. I have never understood why that should be the case because we all operate commercial flights—we all pay for our fuel, tyres and engines. The order of precedence that is sometimes established here is not appropriate.
  I say again that it is important that the interests of general aviation should be properly reflected in the provisions of the Bill. I believe that the Civil Aviation Authority has every intention that that should be the case. I believe, too, that the Minister intends that that is what should happen. However, he will need to put that across to some of those working in NATS who seem not to take the same view. I hope that the Minister will be able to give me the assurances I seek as regards general aviation.
  9.15 p.m.
  Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, Amendment No. 73 seeks to remove Clause 66(2) which provides that, should the CAA fail to perform a duty placed on it by a direction issued under Clause 66(1), then it is not liable to suit. This reflects the current provision in Section 72(3) of the Civil Aviation Act 1982. Notwithstanding Clause 66(2), the CAA will still

  579
  be liable, as is normal under the principles of common law, for its acts or omissions when carrying out activities in pursuance of its duties.
  While a direction may place a duty on the CAA—Clause 103(1) requires that the CAA must give effect to that direction—it will remain with the CAA to decide how best to implement that duty. In such circumstances, it is not too hard to imagine a situation where the CAA could take a course of action which, while satisfactory to the Secretary of State, could be perceived by an individual or organisation as failing to meet that duty. Clearly it would be undesirable for the CAA to be at risk of legal action each time it took policy decisions in response to directions it has received from the Secretary of State. In any event, the directions which the Secretary of State will give to the CAA under Clause 66(1) will require extensive consultation and will provide for any conflicts to be resolved before decisions are finally made. Furthermore, it will of course continue to be possible for decisions of the CAA to be open to judicial review.
  Amendments Nos. 75 and 76 tabled by the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, concern Clause 70, which sets out how the CAA must exercise its air navigation functions. In essence, they appear to seek to ensure that the CAA, when exercising its air navigation functions, must take account of general aviation interests alongside commercial, military and other interests. In Committee the noble Viscount raised similar concerns. I gave an assurance in that debate that that was exactly what the CAA would do. We believe that the terms used in Clause 70(1)(b) are wide enough. The noble Viscount's second amendment, Amendment No. 76, would result in a definition which would be too wide and would encompass people such as parachutists. We do not think that that would be appropriate.
  However, we recognise that the CAA must have adequate powers to enforce its decisions relating to the use of airspace.
  Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister. Why should not parachutists have any representation with the CAA? If they are hurtling towards the ground at 120 miles an hour, they would like to know that there is no one directly underneath them.
  Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, if one wishes to throw the issue open so widely, it would cause concerns that we need not address in this Bill. It has never seemed appropriate in the past to consider parachutists. I do not know whether it has suddenly come as an insight to the noble Viscount, but it is not an issue to which we have addressed much attention in the past, nor do I intend to do so today.
  I can tell the House that the CAA consulted on this issue during the summer. The main proposal in the consultation paper was that the CAA should, after consultation with the Secretary of State, have a power of direction to provide air traffic services in respect of United Kingdom airspace in the interests of ensuring efficient use of airspace, or to ensure that air traffic
  580
  services are provided to a standard considered appropriate by the CAA for the airspace classification. That consultation has now closed and we are considering responses.
  In general, there has been a very positive response to the proposal. We must now seek to respond to the few criticisms made and make a final study of the fine print. I am happy to tell the House that we are strongly minded to pursue this proposal and to seek appropriate amendments to the Air Navigation Order 2000 very shortly.
  Turning to deal with the question of student pilots, we have no reason to believe that the interests of owners and operators of aircraft in which student pilots fly—presumably under co-pilot direction—are excluded by Clause 70(1).
  The noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, suggested that the quotation to which he referred expressed the views of NATS. Let me make it clear that the quotation is not a sentiment I have heard expressed by anyone in NATS management. Of course NATS will ensure that fair and equitable access is given to all.
  The operating licence which will be issued to NATS includes an explicit prohibition against discrimination in the supply of its services. Condition 2 requires the licensee not to give undue preference to, or discriminate against, any person or class of persons in supplying air traffic services. The licensee is permitted to take into account the need to maintain the most expeditious flow of air traffic as a whole—which mirrors the CAA's duty in Clause 70(1)(a)—but may only apply different or additional criteria with the approval of the CAA.
  I was asked another question by the noble Viscount, who challenged me with a very specific example. I hope he will forgive me if I am forced to write to him yet again, I hope in more satisfactory terms than last time.
  Amendment No. 80 seeks to remove Clause 75(7), which allows the CAA to specify, under Clause 73(1), for the purposes of charging, operators and owners of aircraft which do not or could not use the chargeable air traffic services concerned. This reflects the current provision in Section 73(3) of the Civil Aviation Act 1982, which is being repealed.
  This provision seeks to cover the scenario where an aircraft fails to make contact with air traffic control but still enjoys the benefits of services provided in the interests of safety. An example of this is the maintenance of minimum separation distances from other aircraft. This provision also prevents less scrupulous operators from obtaining "free rides" which would result in very serious safety risks.
  The fifth amendment in this group, Amendment No. 81, concerns the powers of the Secretary of State to make regulations regarding the detention and sale of aircraft. The amendment proposes that aircraft should only be allowed to be detained where the current operator of the aircraft was actually the defaulter in paying charges due under Section 73. That would be an unfortunate position to find ourselves in.
  Principally for reasons of safety, air navigation services are not refused to any aircraft. But it is only right that those operators who make use of such services

  581
  should also pay for them. It is a common practice in the aviation industry that aircraft are swiftly transferred between companies; and in many cases aircraft are leased. The threat of detention action is our most potent tool and without these powers large amounts of money would not be recovered, or at least would take many months or years to collect through court action. That might well mean that a way would need to be found to offset unpaid charges. It follows that in fairness to all users of air services we think it absolutely crucial to have the power to detain aircraft, even where the defaulter was the previous operator, as a last resort to reclaim the moneys payable in respect of services.
  I hope that I have demonstrated why the House should not accept the amendments. I ask the noble Lord opposite to withdraw his amendment.
  Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, would he please answer the question I raised in relation to flights outside controlled airspace? Will he confirm that neither the Civil Aviation Authority nor NATS has any plans to raise charges in respect of flights outside controlled airspace? If he cannot give me that assurance now, will he be good enough to write to me?
  Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, I shall certainly write to the noble Lord on that point.
  Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, we have had an interesting debate on this group of amendments — somewhat different and less weighty than some of our debates earlier today.
  I listened carefully to the Minister's reply. I was particularly interested in his response to my Amendment No. 73. He referred to the liability under common law. I shall read his words with great care, as I shall his response to my other amendments, particularly Amendment No. 81.
  I agree that we need the power to detain aircraft. When I occupied the position that the noble Lord presently occupies, I had a monthly note on my desk about whether we should detain aircraft from a certain country, which I shall not name. The Foreign Office took one view and the Department of Transport took another. My view prevailed. We never had to detain the aircraft because they arrived with a suitcase of dollar bills on the day before they were due to be detained. So the policy worked.
  Turning to my noble friends' amendments, it is useful that in this House we have two great proponents of general aviation in the shape of my noble friends Lord Goschen and Lord Trefgarne. I was horrified to hear the alleged description of general aviation as "public enemy number one". As the grandson of the holder of pilot's licence No. 1 in this country, when I presume that all aviation was general aviation, I suppose I am therefore an hereditary public enemy. The Minister might well agree with that sentiment.
  I leave it to my noble friend to decide what to do with his two amendments. In the meantime, I shall read the Minister's response with care. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
  582
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 70 [General duty]:
  Lord Macdonald of Tradeston Lord Macdonald of Tradeston moved Amendment No. 74:
  Page 45, line 29, at beginning insert—
  ("(A1) The CAA must exercise its air navigation functions so as to maintain a high standard of safety in the provision of a it traffic services; and that duty is to have priority over the application of subsections (1) and (2).").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  [Amendments Nos. 75 and 76 not moved.]
  Lord Macdonald of Tradeston Lord Macdonald of Tradeston moved Amendments Nos. 77 to 79:
  Page 46, leave out lines 4 to 6.
  Page 46, line 8, leave out from ("must") to ("as") in line 10 and insert ("apply them in the manner it thinks is reasonable having regard to them").
  Page 46, line 10, at end insert—
  ("(2A) The CAA must exercise its air navigation functions so as to impose on providers of air traffic services the minimum restrictions which are consistent with the exercise of those functions.").
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Clause 75 [Specifications: supplementary]:
  [Amendment No. 80 not moved.]
  Clause 83 [Detention and sale]:
  [Amendment No. 81 not moved.]
  Clause 87 [CAA's 1973 Act functions]:
  Lord Macdonald of Tradeston Lord Macdonald of Tradeston moved Amendments Nos. 82 to 86:
  Page 55, line 23, at end insert—
  ("(1A) The CAA must exercise its 1973 Act functions so as to maintain a high standard of safety in the provision of air traffic services; and that duty is to have priority over the application of subsections (2) to (5).").
  Page 55, leave out lines 40 to 42.
  Page 55, line 43, leave out from beginning to ("interests") in line 1 on page 56 and insert ("The only interests to be considered under subsection (2)(a) are").
  Page 56, line 8, leave out from beginning to ("as") in line 9 and insert ("apply them in the manner it thinks is reasonable having regard to them").
  Page 56, line 9, at end insert—
  ("(5A) The CAA must exercise its 1973 Act functions so as to impose on suppliers of air traffic services the minimum restrictions which are consistent with the exercise of those functions.")
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Clause 93 [Control in time of hostilities etc]:
  [Amendment No. 87 not moved.]
  9.30 p.m.
  Earl Attlee Earl Attlee moved Amendment No. 88:
  After Clause 94, insert the following new clause—

  DETERMINATION OF POSITION AND TIME WITHIN THE UNITED KINGDOM
  (" .—(1) The Secretary of State shall take steps to ensure that within six years of the passing of this Act a person shall, on a commercial basis and in a rural or urban environment, be able to determine reliably—

  583

  (a) his position in the United Kingdom to within 10 metres, and

  (b) the time to within ten nanoseconds.

  (2) Nothing in this section shall require the Secretary of State to provide the services mentioned in subsection (1).").
  The noble Earl said: My Lords, noble Lords will be familiar with the US military operated global positioning by satellite system—generally known as GPS. It enables one to determine one's position, height and the time with remarkable accuracy and convenience. However, for a long time the accuracy of the system was artificially degraded by the US Government for security reasons. Hand-held equipment for this purpose is ubiquitous, small, lightweight and costs between £100 and £200. There are obvious military, civil and recreational applications. The clever electronic part of it is much cheaper and before long a vast range of equipment will have GPS embedded in it as standard and at minimal extra cost.
  As the electronic world moves so fast, my understanding is that the original US GPS system is quickly becoming a legacy system. Apparently there may be difficulties in uprating it while still keeping all the millions of land-based receiver systems fully compatible. The proposed European Galileo civilian system will be much more accurate and meet the requirements of my amendment. Noble Lords will have noticed that my amendment refers to an accuracy of at least 10 metres in distance and "ten nanoseconds in time". I am sure that noble Lords are curious to know how long is a nanosecond: it is slightly less time than the Minister will take to decide to resist my amendment. I believe that it is one 100-millionth of a second.
  But perhaps more importantly, I am told that the reliability of the new system is guaranteed even for safety-critical applications. This opens up numerous possibilities for such things as aircraft and ship navigation, air traffic control, railway signalling systems, intelligent motor car systems and automatic positioning when using a mobile phone for summoning emergency services, to name but a few. I believe that the US has already legislated for the automatic positioning and that we may follow suit. The Galileo system will also be much more effective in heavily built-up areas. Your Lordships may be curious as to why the ability to determine the time so unbelievably accurately is important outside of scientific circles. My understanding is that it is, among other things, important for electronic commerce, especially in banking in order to combat electronic fraud.
  The amendment has been tabled for debate in this part of the Bill because I never gave timing much thought and those concerned, quite properly, placed it after Clause 94. But it is of much more general interest than just aviation. It is considered within the EU Commission to be a transport matter. As the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, has ministerial responsibility for this area, I thought that he would welcome the opportunity to update your Lordships. I hope that he will tell us about the time-scale involved—perhaps in nanoseconds—the UK cost and the overall cost of the project, as well as other points, including its overall desirability for a UK perspective.
  We on these Benches have concerns regarding the cost and defence implications. I appreciate that this is a developing and complex project and that the Minister may not have fully developed his own position in this respect. That is not unusual. However, I believe that noble Lords will be interested in the factors affecting the Minister's decision-making process. I beg to move.
  Lord Berkeley: My Lords, I wish briefly to express amazement about this amendment, which is both interesting and fascinating. The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, said that the system was useful for railway signalling. However, my understanding is that it is fine as long as the train is not in a tunnel but that when it goes into a tunnel problems may arise. If my noble friend the Minister cannot give me an answer to that question tonight, perhaps he could write to me later on the subject.
  Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, this amendment appears to be aimed at securing the establishment of a commercial satellite based navigation and timing system. After considering the technical and financial practicalities of putting such a system in place, it is the Government's view that this objective within the time-scale envisaged would be difficult to achieve. The noble Earl referred to the US GPS (1) system, which is already operational. It provides timing and position fixing services free of charge. However, its accuracy, availability and coverage fall short of those envisaged in this amendment. I understand that GPS is to be upgraded to provide improved resilience and accuracy for tracking and timing—perhaps even to a degree that might make it indispensable to party Whips, let alone trains in tunnels! However, I assure the House that these improvements are unlikely to be operational before 2008.
  There is already a European Community initiative to develop a European satellite navigation system called Galileo on lines similar to and compatible with GPS. This has only reached the project definition stage and it is not yet clear how this system will be developed, specified and funded, nor is the basis of its availability yet determined, still less when the system could be operational. Negotiations between Europe and the United States on co- operation in this area are still on going. As the noble Earl has said, these satellite systems are crucial for many aspects of modern life. The Government therefore pay close attention to these matters. He is right to draw our attention to them.
  The United Kingdom is therefore closely involved in the development of Galileo and is pressing for clarity on all these points. I shall discuss these issues with my European colleagues at the December Transport Council. I shall also press for clarity on costs. The Commission's current estimate is that Galileo will cost some 3.2 billion euros. Many think that that is a conservative estimate.
  We are also playing a full part in Europe's development of the European Geo-stationary Overlay Navigation Service (EGNOS). This is planned to provide augmentation to GPS over Europe by 2004 but

  585
  would need a validation phase to certify its use for safety critical applications and time to develop potential commercial applications. We are also examining options for extending the signal from the General Lighthouse Authority's marine differential GPS service to cover the whole of the British Isles for land based transport and other applications. Against that background, I invite the noble Earl to withdraw the amendment.
  Earl Attlee: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. The timescale I suggested was purely a guess for the purposes of drafting the amendment. The key point is that the new system should offer reliability and integrity. I again thank the Minister for his reply. He will not be surprised to hear me say that I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 107 [Local transport plans]:
  Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 89:
  Page 65, line 18, after ("area") insert ("with a view to enhancing the comfort and choice in the means of transport, and developing policies to reduce the need to travel or to transport freight where possible").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, I suspect that the Government may be pleased to move away from the rather controversial matter of radar control of aircraft and into the more peaceful realms of integrated transport. If the policy of integrated transport is to be effective, Part II of the Bill and its impact on the little decisions which are taken locally is fundamental to the success of that whole concept.
  Great national policies do not make an impact on integrated transport. It is decisions on traffic control, parking control, improved bus services, the relationship between bus services and train services and the need to move goods, services and people that make the concept of integrated transport meaningful and beneficial to people at large.
  When we discussed this part of the Bill at an earlier stage the Government were generally resistant to the idea that we should put more description onto the face of the Bill. The Government said, perfectly reasonably—and I acknowledge the reasonableness of the argument—that it was prescriptive. I am quite prepared to admit that I am a great advocate of not trying to constrain what local authorities should do in this way. That argument would have validity if we did not have the Bill. The trouble is that it seeks to guide local authorities. If one seeks to undertake that guidance then one needs a certain amount of clarity about what is being done. Amendments Nos. 89 and 90 are specifically directed at that.
  Amendment No. 89 simply requires that the planning process should also have in view,
  "enhancing the comfort and choice in the means of transport, and developing policies to reduce the need to travel or to transport freight where possible".
  Not least of the problems that we face in modern communities is that everything is now transported. When I was considering these two amendments I thought about the transport needs of new-born babies.
  586
  That may sound a ridiculous concept, but let me take, for example, disposable nappies, which are voluminous and bulky and not easy to carry. Someone who wants to buy a month's supply of disposable nappies does not want to have to carry them home on a bus. That is not an easy thing to do. I have seven grandchildren so I do know what I am speaking about. I have never had the privilege of carrying their disposable nappies, but that is neither here nor there.
  We need to recognise the changes which have taken place in society—particularly its shopping habits—when we consider all these issues together. It is all very well to remember that when we were young there were neighbourhood shops; if one did not have something, one could walk a couple of 100 yards or even half a mile down the road and get it. Those days have gone. Nowadays I go shopping with great regularity because it is educational at the very least. It is good for me although it may be soul-destroying. My wife believes that it improves my character or something of that sort.
  It is remarkable when one sees ordinary people shopping with a supermarket trolley filled with goods. That sort of shopping is not capable of being carried by most systems of public transport because the trolley cannot be taken away by the shopper. For the vast hulk of the population today that is the way they shop and that is modern transportation. It is not 40-tonne trucks going down the high street, vexing though they may be. It is the little things which affect little people. We need to bear that in mind.
  Amendment No. 90 adds three letters, the word "all" where we consider persons living, working or travelling through a district. It might be thought that that is tautologous and unnecessary. I suggest that it is helpful. If those responsible for transport planning do not consider the needs of all, it would be very easy for them to consider the needs of particular groups and, most importantly, those groups with whom they are directly concerned: their own community.
  We had some debate on this issue in a different context. One can understand that the people of Portsmouth might have a view about transport which requires to go through the heart of their city in order to arrive at the Isle of Wight. I believe that the addition of the word "all" is important. It may call for the judgment of Solomon by local authorities. I think that they are capable of taking such a broad 'view.
  I do not apologise for bringing forward the amendments. I hope that the Government will look with favour on one or other of the amendments, or will agree to consider them. I beg to move.
  9.45 p.m.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Lord Whitty): My Lords, I join the noble Lord in welcoming a movement across to integrated transport and applaud his eloquence in describing it. The two clauses seemed relatively straightforward to me. I had not realised that we should engage in quite such a wide sweep of modern civilisation involving

  587
  disposable nappies! I shall have to consult with my noble friend Lord Macdonald on whether we need an extra section on supermarket trolleys.
  However, I confine myself to the words proposed by the noble Lord and ask him to consider whether the amendments are necessary. As drafted, the Bill already contains such requirements. The amendments seek to add to the definitions of either the policies to be developed in a local transport plan or what is meant by "transport facilities and services". At present, Clause 107(1)(a) places a requirement upon a local transport authority to,
  "develop policies for the promotion of and encouragement of safe, integrated, efficient and economic transport facilities and services to, from and within their area".
  Clause 107(2) then defines "transport facilities and services".
  The wording of the Bill is deliberately broad to ensure that local authorities and others can face up to a wide range of circumstances in their areas. The danger in trying to be more specific about what can be a facility or service is that if it is defined in a list doubt is raised if other factors are excluded.
  The definition is sufficiently broad to ensure that it covers issues such as freight, pedestrians, people from outside and inside the area and those who live, work and shop in the locality. I hate shopping, but it is undoubtedly an activity which determines many of our transport patterns; therefore we should cover that. However, the broad general approach in the Bill covers that. Were we to use the term "all" in Amendment No. 90, it would place local authorities in difficulty. On one single person's slightly anomalous requirements, the authority might be deemed to have failed even if it has fulfilled very well the requirements for 99 per cent of the population. So there is a difficulty in using his three letter word in that respect.
  I hope that we can keep the provision broad and give local authorities the flexibility that the noble Lord usually seeks. I hope that he will not press the amendment.
  Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, the Minister's reply is along the lines I expected. Our difficulty is that we can Box and Cox with these words and have these charming debates. However, underlying the debate are some important principles.
  I shall consider again what the Minister has said. There is no absolute answer. One answer might have been to leave it to local authorities and not have the Bill. My bet is that they would have got on with the job quite happily without any legislation if they had been told to do so—but there you go; that is the difference between us. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 90 not moved.]
  Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 91:
  Page 65, line 23, at end insert (", and
  (c) those required to minimise noise and damage to the environment;").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is more specific. It would require local authorities to consider measures needed to minimise noise and damage to the environment. The Minister may say that the requirement already exists under other legislation.
  Some aspects of transport are destructive. One has only to consider the ambient noise level in London to realise that. When the Science and Technology Committee was examining the impact of vehicle exhausts on pollution, one of the papers that we considered, although it was a somewhat unrelated and tangential source of evidence, was written by a German doctor who claimed that 50 per cent of heart attacks were caused by noise. That was a published paper that has not been quarrelled with. If the claim has any validity, it is very serious.
  Minimising transport noise is an important consideration. There are also the usual considerations of minimising damage to the environment and the problems of atmospheric pollution caused by exhaust emissions.
  We come back to the point about reducing the need for transport. We need to produce an environment in which more people get back on to their feet and walk. About a quarter of all journeys are less than a mile and could easily be walked. We also need to get more people back on to bicycles, because another quarter of all journeys are less than four miles and could easily be cycled. Those are environmentally friendly means of transport. Whatever the Minister may say about the impact and requirements of other legislation, the Bill would be improved by such an explicit requirement. I do not apologise for returning to that worthwhile issue.
  Amendment No. 92 is slightly different. It would require each local transport authority that was also a planning authority to review its unitary development plan or structure plan at the earliest possible stage with a view to ensuring that the objectives and policies of the two plans were consistent.
  Good development planning or structure planning can diminish the need for transport. I have a long experience of planning in local government. The philosophy of incremental development rather than what I would call rational strategic development planning is too widespread. It is all too easy to build a little development here and a little development there rather than to sit down and consider what is required if one wants a community where transport needs can be reduced.
  I do not apologise for bringing forward this amendment. It may be implicit in other legislation and the Minister may say, "Well, they will have to do that because …". However, here we are dealing with an integrated transport philosophy and a Bill that is specifically directed to ensuring that small decisions in local places are taken with that in mind. It would help

  589
  if such matters were explicit on the face of the Bill rather than implicit as a result of other legislation which exists elsewhere. I beg to move.
  Lord Whitty: My Lords, again, it is difficult to disagree with the noble Lord's analysis and we welcome his commitment to green transport policies. Of course, by the definitions that we have used elsewhere, integrated transport policies include walking and cycling The problem with inserting environmental requirements at this point is that this clause seeks to define what is meant by "transport facilities and services". His wording, with references to noise and environmental damage, does not fit easily with that. Therefore, I do not believe that the amendment is appropriate here and the wider point is covered elsewhere.
  Amendment No. 92 seeks to require authorities which are both local transport authorities and planning authorities to review their development plans in order to ensure consistency between both the LTP and the unitary development plans. Of course, that is necessary and there is nothing objectionable in it. However, the issue of consistency between the two planning regimes is best dealt with in guidance or under the powers in Clause 111. I believe that, because of the different scope and timing of such matters, that can be dealt with by more detailed guidance rather than on the face of the Bill. Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord will not pursue these two amendments.
  Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I was afraid that the Minister would mention the question of guidance. I was waiting for him to do so, but we shall come to that later. An awful question arises in the Bill as to when guidance is guidance and when it is something else. None the less, I shall consider with care what the Minister said. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 92 not moved.]
  Lord Swinfen Lord Swinfen moved Amendment No. 93:
  After Clause 107, insert the following new clause—

  LOCAL TRANSPORT PLAN: ACCESSIBLE TRANSPORT FOR DISABLED PEOPLE
  (" .—(1) In addition to containing the proposals and policies required by section 107 above, the local transport plan—

  (a) shall contain the Authority's proposals for the provision of transport which is accessible to disabled people;

  (b) shall specify a timetable for the implementation of the proposals contained in the transport strategy by virtue of paragraph (a) above.

  (2) In preparing or revising the transport strategy the Authority shall consult—

  (a) the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee; and

  (b) such other persons or bodies which represent the interests of disabled people as it considers appropriate to consult.").

  The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 93, I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 94 and 95. I had originally asked for Amendment No. 118 to be grouped with Amendment No. 94. I must admit that I do not understand why
  590
  nearly all my suggested groupings have been changed. There was a logic in the groupings that I had proposed. However, I shall do my best.
  The purpose of Amendment No. 93 is to require that transport plans include provisions for disabled people. The plans should be drawn up in consultation with organisations of disabled people and include an action plan for improvements to accessibility. The Greater London Authority Act 1999 contains a provision in Section 142(2) and (4) to that effect. That forms the basis of the amendment. If it is in the Greater London Authority Act, why should it not be included in this Bill which, when an Act, will cover the whole country?
  The purpose of Amendment No. 94 is to ensure that in statutory consultations over their local plans, local authorities include and make the consultations accessible to a range of disabled people—the blind, deaf and those with learning difficulties—for whom ordinary printed material will not be effective.
  The purpose of Amendment No. 95 is to require local authorities to have a local walking strategy as part of their local transport plan in order to ensure proper improvements to the street environment.
  I welcome the placing of local transport plans on a statutory footing and see the Government's transport strategy as a considerable opportunity for local public transport to be greatly enhanced to the benefit of disabled people. Those plans have a vital role to play in providing more coherent and comprehensive solutions and creating a safer street environment for everyone, particularly those with disabilities.
  Each local transport authority must develop and implement policies for the promotion and encouragement of safe, integrated, efficient and economic transport facilities and services to, from and within their area. I note that the transport facilities and services include those required to meet the needs of persons living or working in the authority's area or visiting or travelling through that area.
  I am pleased that Clause 111(2) requires authorities to have regard to the needs of those with mobility problems in preparing local transport plans. However, the disability movement's experience is that many well-intentioned proposals for making transport more accessible to disabled people failed because of a lack of consultation with disabled people themselves. Therefore, that provision should be on the face of the Bill.
  In Clause 108(4), the authority must publish the plan, or the plan as altered, in such a manner as it sees fit and subsection (4)(c) provides that a copy, or any part of it, must be supplied to any person on request either free of charge or at a charge representing no more than the cost of providing a copy. But I should expect that the provision of information would be in the preferred format of the individual requesting it, thus ensuring that service providers meet their obligations under the DDA 1995.
  The quality of a pedestrian environment seriously affects disabled people's independent mobility and the ability to reach bus services. Organisations of disabled people consider it vital that a walking strategy is

  591
  required to ensure access within the pedestrian environment. The requirement of a local walking strategy would help to ensure the implementation of the Government's strategy to encourage walking, which is designed to address the decline of walking. I beg to move.
  10 p.m.
  Baroness Darcy de Knayth: My Lords, I support these amendments most warmly. The noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, has given an extremely comprehensive introduction. I am not sure that there is much that I can add.
  I agree with the noble Lord when he says that the provisions need to be on the face of the Bill. There has been much experience of well-meaning local authorities simply not knowing what are the needs of people with disabilities. The reference to disabled people's needs should be spelt out on the face of the Bill. It is essential that local authorities should be required to consult the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee, just as the mayor of the GLA must do.
  As regards Amendment No. 94, I agree that it is important that the consultations should reach those with sensory impairments and learning difficulties and, indeed, the deaf-blind, although I am not sure how one does reach them with that sort of information. Perhaps someone may enlighten me or think of something in0020relation to that. They are the most excluded of all people and I feel that we should try to do something for them.
  I support Amendment No. 95, the local walking strategy without which, as the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, said, disabled people will not be able to get to buses. It is also useful for mothers and children with prams.
  Lord Addington: My Lords, I rise briefly to support the amendments. I am sure that the Minister may be thinking of replying by saying, "Don't worry; it's all covered." However, it is 10 or 12 years since I first heard discussion on these provisions. The fact that we are now returning to the issue means that the lobby groups outside think we need to remind people who make these decisions to bear disabled people in mind.
  Unless we are told to consider these problems, we often do not realise that they exist. It is also the case that when we talk about the disabled, we receive the reply, "Oh, that's somebody in a wheelchair", or "That is somebody who is blind" and the problem is not taken further. We must try to reach a situation where people look across the whole spectrum of disability and ensure that all needs are addressed. Unless we have this type of legislation, and are permanently prompted, something will be missed and we will not move forward. That is one of the battles that is constantly being fought. That is why we shall keep returning to this issue until we have something conclusive in law which means that people must take such problems seriously.
  I support the noble Lord when he says that Amendment No. 118 should be included in this grouping. It follows almost directly from Amendment
  592
  No. 94. We need to reach those who have difficulty with print. That includes the visually impaired and those with literacy problems. We must try to help them overcome the barrier of the printed word, which excludes people from what is available to the rest of the community. The technology is now available. We may find it irritating on buses and trains to be told when we are stopping, but for those who cannot read the signs, it is necessary.
  The amendments are necessary, not because they are not implied in law but because in practice these areas are simply missed.
  Lord Berkeley: My Lords, I rise to support Amendment No. 95. A walking strategy is important, both for able bodied and disabled people. I do not know whether or not the wording is right. However, I continue to find that people who produce strategies and local authorities who mend pavements or roads travel only in cars. I have been soaked on pavements recently because the drains were blocked and cars were rushing past. Even in the local authority of Oxford where the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, sometimes has an involvement, five miles of road have been beautifully resurfaced but the road gullies are about two inches higher than the surrounding road just by the bus stop. As a result everybody who is waiting for a bus is soaked by the bus.
  How on earth can one get local authorities, and the politicians who run them, to realise that walking needs to be enjoyable without having to wear oilskins and gumboots, while those in cars have air conditioning and heating? If the amendment contributes to that view being accepted, I support it.
  Lord Whitty: My Lords, like other noble Lords, I sometimes find the groupings illogical. However, we will probably have to deal with them as they are. I, too, am anxious to make clear through the Bill that the Government want disabled people to have the kind of transport facilities which are accessible to them so that they can play a full part in the life of the community. We have made clear, both in the White Papers and guidance that we have given through the local transport plans, that that is the objective. Current guidance is clear about precisely how local authorities should address the transport needs of the elderly, mobility impaired and so on. That specific criteria in relation to disability issues has been supported by our statutory advisers, DPTAC, to which the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen referred. Like DPTAC, we acknowledge that the emphasis in the guidance may need to be changed or strengthened over time. But guidance included under Clause 111 gives us the means to do so. Of course, we shall work with DPTAC in developing the guidance in relation to the transport needs of disabled people. Clause 111 (2) makes clear that authorities, when developing their policies under Clause 107 and their bus strategy, must,
  "have regard to the transport needs of persons who are elderly or have mobility problems".
  Amendment No. 93, therefore, is not necessary. The requirements are already placed on the authorities and developed in that guidance, and we are developing the

  593
  strategy very clearly in conjunction with the main national body which represents the needs of disabled people.
  Amendment No. 94 seeks to amend the requirement upon a local transport authority that when requested to supply a copy of its local transport plan it must do so in the chosen format of the person making the request. Part III of the DDA places specific duties on those providing goods, facilities or services to the public. The Act makes it unlawful for service providers to discriminate against disabled people in defined circumstances. Those circumstances include where a service provider has failed to comply with a duty to make reasonable adjustments if the effect of that failure is to make it impossible for a disabled person to read, understand or receive the service.
  Sc the position is already covered in the DDA. Since our discussion in Committee it has become more apparent that there is uncertainty about whether an LTP is covered by the requirements of the DDA. I wrote to the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, on that point. Because that position is not straightforward, we consider that the best approach will be to issue guidance to local authorities in relation to alternative formats. I want to put on the record that that is our commitment. Of course, in drawing up that guidance we will be consulting DPTAC as our statutory advisers in this area. I believe that meets the objectives of Amendment No. 94.
  Amendment No. 95 relates to a walking strategy. Again, integrated transport has already been defined as including the needs of pedestrians and specifically requires authorities to include facilities and services for pedestrians. So it is already clear, without spelling out the structure of a walking strategy as the amendment seeks to do, that walking is a major dimension of our transport strategy. As the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, said in relation to an earlier amendment, a move to more appropriate modes definitely includes moves to modes which involve our own two feet. We are certainly keen that walking should be part of the structure. But that is already covered without it being specified in detail as Amendment No. 96 attempts to do.
  I hope that, with those remarks, the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, will feel that we are committed to the same objectives as himself and that these amendments are not necessary in order to achieve them.
  Lord Swinfen: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I am not sure that I heard him speak to Amendment No. 95. Does the requirement under the Disability Discrimination Act to make physical adjustments to premises, which I appreciate does not take effect until the year 2004, affect the physical adjustments to streets? Is that included under the Disability Discrimination Act?
  Lord Whitty: My Lords, I shall need to take advice on that matter. The answer is that it probably is not, except
  594
  in so far as the streets provide facilities to access premises. It may be therefore that the noble Lord has a point. With his leave, I shall write to him on that matter.
  Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I should be delighted to receive another letter from the noble Lord and I thank him for his letter of 20th October. I appreciate that he took the trouble to write to me after the Recess.
  I appreciate the support which I have received from around the Chamber. The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, was right in saying that in had weather one sees many pedestrians being splashed. The local authorities, when looking after their roads, could do something about that if they took the trouble and so could their contractors. Such incidents are not unusual; sometimes they occur accidentally but on other occasions they are due to nothing more than the drivers' lack of consideration. Inside their nice cosy cocoons, they are not prepared to realise that other people are freezing outside in the slush of January and February.
  I have commented on Amendment No. 95 and I wonder whether Amendment No. 94 is properly covered by the Disability Discrimination Act. The Minister said that my Amendment No. 93 was not necessary and the issues would be covered by guidance. He also stated that in his letter to me. Most of us in the Chamber have children and grandchildren and we know that we give them guidance. The trouble is that they do not follow it—neither do local authorities! The law does not state that they must do so. If they have not followed the guidance and something goes wrong, they have a deeper hole to climb out of. I believe that the measure should be on the face of the Bill and if it were not so late at night I should be inclined to ask the opinion of the House. But it is late at night and due to that—and that alone—I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. I shall not move the next two amendments but reserve my right to return to them at Third Reading.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 108 [Further provision about plans]:
  [Amendment No. 94 not moved.]
  [Amendment No. 95 not moved.]
  Clause 109 [Bus strategies]:
  Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 96:
  Page 66, line 29, after ("authority") insert ("or where appropriate. Passenger Transport Authority").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 96 has slipped through the net. I had not intended to move it as it is answered elsewhere in the Bill. However, Amendment No. 97 is important. Clause 109 is worded obscurely, to say the least. It provides that an authority should provide whatever bus services and facilities it, the authority, thinks it should provide. One must ask: to what end, for what benefit and for whose purpose that is directed? All that is completely avoided on the face of the Bill.
  The Bill should not be about an authority providing bus services to suit itself. What are we talking about?

  595
  And so I thought that a more appropriate purpose was required. We have therefore tabled the amendment, which proposes that authorities should
  "develop bus services in their area on behalf of their communities and those wishing to travel in those communities having regard to the economic and social well-being in their area".
  Even that is a dreadful generalisation but a least it is a purpose above and beyond that of their own requirements as authorities. I accept that an authority acts on behalf of its community and all those other matters. However, we are framing legislation which people are to follow. If we cannot come up with something better than Clause 109 as it is presently drafted, in that regard we fail in our duty. Certainly, the Government have failed in their drafting. I hope that the Minister will consider my amendment, however unpalatable it may be. I do not believe that the Bill as drafted is a suitable piece of legislation.
  Amendment No. 98 which is also part of this group simply draws attention to a very simple problem. In developing a bus strategy the authority should have regard to the need for school transport. For those authorities which are involved in education school transport is a vexed issue. When I was involved in this matter at local government level I remember impassioned debates as to whether an education authority should be required to provide transport. If somebody did not provide transport, education could not be provided because children could not get to school. These may be basic statements of the facts of life. However, in this Bill transport authorities are specifically directed to consider what is involved in bus strategies and how they can help their communities. If school transport is not part of that I do not know what is. I beg to move.
  Lord Whitty: My Lords, we accept that school transport is important. However, Clause 109(3) already requires an authority to have regard to any measures that it is required, or proposes, to take to meet transport requirements in carrying out its functions as a local education authority. The issue of school transport is already covered.
  I understand that the noble Lord does not intend to press Amendment No. 96. Therefore, in effect he spoke to Amendment No. 97. Whatever the noble Lord may see as the inadequacies of the present clause, I do not believe that his amendment does what he suggests. From the way that the noble Lord described the objective of his amendment, I would have thought that it was not desirable. It would substitute alternative wording for much of subsection (1), with the loss of important requirements on local authorities, particularly in paragraphs (a) to (c); for example, the need to consider the standard of bus services, any additional facilities and services connected with bus services, which would mean items such as bus stops, waiting facilities, interchanges and so on. The clause was drafted to reflect the fact that local authorities would have a wider range of bus functions as a result of the Bill. The noble Lord's amendment would delete some of those functions. I am not convinced that the present
  596
  drafting is all that wrong, but in my view the amendment would make it worse. I hope that the noble Lord will not pursue his amendment.
  Lord Dixon-Smith: I have an awful feeling that the Minister and I have a simple difference of opinion over this matter. I do not regard Clause 109 as presently drafted as in the least satisfactory. The clause is convoluted and unclear and does not direct the attention of a transport authority to the need to serve its community. I accept that my amendment may delete certain parts of Clause 109, but that is a matter which I can address at Third Reading. I shall study the Minister's response. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 97 and 98 not moved.]
  Clause 110 [Consultation and publicity about bus strategies]:
  [Amendment No. 99 not moved.]
  Lord Swinfen Lord Swinfen moved Amendment No. 100:
  Page 67, line 16, at end insert (", and representatives of potential users of such services").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 100, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 104, 108 and 121. I have already spoken to Amendment No. 118. I asked for Amendments Nos. 103 and 104 to be grouped together because that is the logical grouping. Therefore, I shall include Amendment No. 103 in my remarks.
  At the moment, not all disabled people can use buses because many are still inaccessible to them. Amendment No. 100 requires local transport authorities to consult disabled people, whether or not they are currently able to use buses. As buses become accessible they will be able to use them. Therefore, why not consult them now and make certain that they will use them? It will reduce congestion if they no longer use their cars on the public highway. Part of the Government's agenda is to reduce congestion.
  Amendment No. 103 seeks to allow quality partnerships to specify details of timing and frequency of services. Amendment No. 104 requires local transport authorities to consult organisations of disabled people, whether or not they are users of local services, before introducing quality partnerships. That is why I wanted the two amendments grouped together.
  Amendment No. 108 requires local transport authorities to consult disabled people and their organisations, whether or not they are current service users, before introducing quality contracts. Amendment No. 121 requires local authorities to have regard to the needs of those with sensory impairments and learning difficulties in deciding the appropriate way to provide information.
  The organisations for disabled people tell me that they have little faith in local democratic processes when it comes to safeguarding the interests of those with disabilities. Disabled people are in a minority. Their needs are not generally well known to the non-disabled

  597
  majority. Consequently, the demands of the non-disabled majority generally overwhelm the needs of disabled people. Therefore, I should like local transport authorities to be specifically required to consult disabled people and their organisations, whether or not they are currently local transport users. One should bear in mind that transport suitable for people with disabilities is also suitable for the elderly, those whose health is deteriorating and also parents with small children and large quantities of shopping.
  Noble Lords will frequently have seen young mothers with two or three small children struggling with numerous plastic bags, baskets and packages of one form or another. It is terribly difficult for them to get on to an old-fashioned bus. It is quite a hike up. Transport which is suitable for people with disabilities would be suitable for them as well.
  I turn now to Amendments Nos. 103 and 104. Timing and frequency of local transport are key factors that often stop disabled people being able to go out independently. If an authority proposes to make a quality partnership scheme, it should give notice of the proposed scheme and, inter alia, consult such,
  "organisations appearing to the authority to be representative of users of such services",
  as it thinks fit That includes organisations of those with disabilities. The same applies to quality contracts.
  Local transport authorities, either alone or jointly, are required to determine what bus information should be made available and how to arrange with operators for its provision. If such an agreement cannot be made, the local authority will provide the information and the bus company will be charged. Before making such a decision, the authority must consult such organisations as it thinks fit. particularly those who use local services. That should include disabled people and should be in an appropriate format that all disabled people can use. I beg to move.
  10.30 p.m.
  Baroness Darcy de Knayth: I support these amendments which the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, has covered comprehensively. This business of not consulting non-users seems curious to me. If the intention is to improve the bus service and make buses suitable for more people, those who for one reason or another do not use the services at that moment should be consulted. That is particularly important in the case of disabled people because those who use the services will inevitably be non-disabled people who will not understand what disabled people need.
  A manufacturer who is selling a new product or a new version of an existing product does not survey only his satisfied customers; nor does a company seeking to expand its services to new customers ever only survey its existing customers. In Surrey recently there was a survey of bus services which had the aim of increasing the number of passengers carried. The survey was sent to non-users but became the subject of ridicule throughout the area because it did not ask why non-users failed to use any of the services. All the questions were directed at users and, what is worse, at users of the existing services.
  598
  As a result, those conducting the survey did not discover either the need for a new service to a neighbouring town or the need to move several bus stops and adjust schedule timings to attract more passengers.
  Experience has shown that local authorities need to be told exactly who to consult. They will not make progress if they are not told clearly to consult new users. Amendment No. 121 provides that the local authority must have regard to those with visual and hearing impairments and people with learning difficulties. I hope that the Minister can give a positive response to these amendments.
  Lord Shutt of Greetland: My Lords, I was inclined to think that the groupings rather suited me. But perhaps they do not after all. I rise to speak to Amendment s Nos. 106 and 179. However, as I want really to speak to Amendment No. 103, and Amendment No. 103 has now been referred to, perhaps it is right to speak to it at this stage.
  Several amendments stand in my name which were previously in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Manchester, who cannot be with us today. There has been a kind of trans-Pennine transfer and have taken the amendments on. It appears to me that Amendments Nos. 106 and 179 can be left alone if we look carefully at Amendment No. 103, which has been referred to, particularly with reference to disabled people. However, there is far more to this issue than just the needs of disabled people.
  Clause 113 is about quality partnership schemes and about implementing the policies in bus strategies. It is about the authority providing particular facilities and the operators of local services providing local services of a certain standard. The clause refers to facilities, which will include bus shelters and so forth, and then states:
  "The standard of services which may be specified … do not include requirements as to frequency or timing of the services".
  Little could be more fundamental to a bus service than when it operates and whether the service is frequent. For example, if an environmentally friendly bus with full facilities for the disabled turns up on1y once a day at three o'clock in the morning, I do not believe that that would bring quality to the service. Furthermore, I do not believe, if that is what is provided for in this clause, those who will be required to produce facilities to meet a certain standard will have the confidence to invest in bus shelters, bring in traffic regulation orders and so forth. They will not implement those measures unless they know, with some confidence, that a "quality of service" will be introduced.
  Frequency and timing are imperative as regards bus services. For that reason, I believe that paragraph (b) should be deleted from this subsection. Indeed, most people who need to use buses would consider that frequency and timing are rather fundamental.
  Lord Berkeley: My Lords, perhaps I may also speak briefly to Amendment No. 103, which has joined this grouping. The noble Lord is right: frequency and timing are absolutely essential. I believe that we argued this point at some length at an earlier stage in our deliberations.

  599
  The Transport and Environment Committee of the Scottish Parliament discussed exactly the same issue a few days ago, on 24th October. It is interesting to note that the Scottish Transport Minister has herself proposed an amendment to the Transport Bill (Scotland) which states that:
  "Any specified standard—
  may include

  (i) requirements which the vehicles being used to provide a service shall meet; and,

  (ii) requirements as to the minimum frequency of services".

  I believe that we should welcome what is being done by our colleagues in Scotland. I hope that my noble friend will agree that, on this occasion, they appear to be taking the lead on us here in Westminster. Perhaps we should use their example as a precedent and accept that setting a minimum level of frequency would be useful in this subsection.
  Lord Addington: My Lords, I should like to speak briefly on this point because my name has been added to amendments in this grouping. It is essential to consult those groups that will form part of the improved client base if there is to be any chance of meeting their needs.
  It has been said before, but I cannot repeat it often enough, that when it comes to considering the needs of the disabled, all too often those groups are simply left out. I hope that the Minister will be able to give the House a further assurance that sufficiently wide consultation will take place. All too frequently such groups are either not consulted at all or not consulted widely enough.
  Lord Whitty: My Lords, I can assure all noble Lords who have spoken that it is our intention that consultation carried out under this Bill should be both effective and inclusive. We want in particular to take account of the needs of those who are disabled in various ways. We want to ensure that matters such as ticketing arrangements and accessibility are developed for the convenience of all users, not only the fit and able.
  The question that arises from these amendments—or at least the amendments that were originally included in the grouping—is whether further provisions are required to deal with that. Amendments Nos. 100, 104, 108 and, indeed, Amendment No. 99, refer to potential users. I accept some of the points made in relation to the need for consultation to involve those who are not already users of a service, but exactly what are organisations representing potential users? I find it difficult to envisage the kind of organisations that might be included here, other than those representing disabled people—which is one specific area and which the general requirements on consultation contained in the Bill would require local authorities to consult in any case.
  I suppose there are other potential users. For example, bus users may be members of motoring organisations or motor cycling organisations and so on. I am not entirely sure whether it is intended that such organisations should have a specific role, other than the one they have in relation to the integrated transport plan
  600
  in general. References to "organisations of potential users" require definition before we can take such a change seriously.
  Amendments Nos. 104 and 108 relate specifically to organisations representing disabled people. The Bill already acknowledges the needs of disabled people in Clause 111. It is an overarching duty on local transport authorities to have regard to the needs of disabled people, including within quality partnerships and ticketing schemes. They must be taken into account. The consultation requirements therefore. follow that and it is not necessary to make an additional reference to them here.
  The procedures are made abundantly clear in the guidance—I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, will come back with his general view of the guidance—and that will specifically gear local authorities into following them in detail. The guidance will state the minimum requirements for a local transport plan, which should show a clear commitment to meeting the needs of disabled people and evidence of consultation with organisations which represent them in the decision-making process. That is all spelt out clearly in the guidance in pursuit of the general requirement to meet the needs of disabled people.
  Amendment No. 103 raises the wider issue of the nature of quality partnerships. It is an issue on which we had lengthy debates at earlier stages of the Bill. It concerns the inclusion of frequencies and timings within statutory schemes. Clarity is needed. First, we need to explain the legal principle involved here. A key feature of a quality partnership is that the local authority can set quality standards which are applicable to all-comers. Any bus operator who wishes to enjoy the benefits of the scheme must meet the standards imposed.
  The legal requirements would mean that if we conceded this amendment we would blur the distinction between quality partnerships and quality contracts. Quality partnerships are about giving local authorities new powers, following consultation, to set these overall standards. Quality contracts concern giving local authorities the powers to prescribe the details of bus services in a given area, which includes a detailed timetable of frequencies and services. If we were to rewrite frequencies and services into the quality partnership part of the Bill we would blur that distinction.
  It is, of course, always open for local authorities voluntarily to reach agreements with operators which specify frequencies and services, but to give that statutory backing without moving into the area of quality contracts would blur the distinction.
  My noble friend Lord Berkeley referred to the position in Scotland. It may be that our colleagues in Scotland see these matters slightly differently. That is a matter for the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Executive. We wish to maintain a clear distinction between what are basically voluntary arrangements with bus operators and what is an imposition by local authorities where other methods have failed under the quality contract provisions. That kind of detailed

  601
  intervention, with statutory backing, is appropriate in the quality contract scheme but not in the quality partnership area.
  Lord Berkeley: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, is he saying that quality partnerships in Scotland are the same as quality contracts in England? That will be very confusing. If quality partnerships in Scotland—given the different Parliament, the different legal system and so oh—require prescription of the minimum requirement for services, it is a bit odd to have the same title for something which is different here.
  10.45 p.m.
  Lord Whitty: My Lords, one of the consequences of devolution is that bits of policy operate differently in different parts of the United Kingdom. I personally regard that as relatively healthy. It may be that the Scots have a better prescription than we do; it may be that ours is better than theirs. Time will tell. All I am saying is that the UK Government, in legislating for the English provisions on this matter, want to maintain a clear distinction so far as statutory requirements are concerned between the voluntary partnerships and the quality contracts.
  On a voluntary basis, anything can be included on an agreed basis between the operator and the local authority. That includes frequency and timing. But to give statutory backing takes us into a different field. We want to maintain that distinction, whatever the Parliament in Edinburgh wants to do.
  Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I think the Minister should talk to his noble friend Lord Sainsbury whose firm has for generations attracted potential new customers to its stores. I am sure that he would receive a few clues on how public transport companies could encourage potential users and on how to advertise what is on offer.
  The proposal that there should be a definition of potential users is interesting. However, I should have thought that anyone who is not a regular user of public transport is, ipso facto, a potential user. I should not have thought that there was a great deal of difficulty on that point.
  I shall read carefully the Minister's response to Amendment No. 103 on the difference between quality partnerships and quality contracts. Like his noble friend Lord Berkeley, I am rather puzzled by his reply. To be honest, I do not think that it holds water.
  While voluntary quality partnerships can be entered into, as I understand it no bus company would do so—because it would not be protected from being sued for anti-competitive practice. I understand that a bus company would potentially be abusing a dominant position if other bus companies did not have access to certain facilities which it had because of the voluntary quality partnership scheme. It would also be the bus company and not the local authority that would be sued.
  602
  As I said, I shall consider what the Minister has said on Amendment No. 103, which we have not actually come to. Technically speaking, it is not in this grouping. Does the noble Lord wish to intervene?
  Lord Whitey: My Lords, I thought that the noble Lord made it clear that he wanted to transfer Amendment No. 103 into this grouping and indeed spoke to it at some length. I therefore replied at some length.
  Lord Swinfen: My Lords, it was the noble Lord's noble friend who, I thought, was disagreeing with me. I am quite happy to have spoken to the amendment. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 100.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 111 [Plans and strategies: supplementary]:
  Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 101:
  Page 67, line 30, leave out subsection (1).
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, Clause 111 is important. It states that,
  "In carrying out their functions under sections 107 to 110, a local transport authority must have regard to any guidance concerning …the content of any local transport plans (and bus strategies)",
  and so on. I do not apologise to the House for returning to this matter—not so much for the content of the clause, but for what I see as the implications for our legislative process of what we are doing. I have in mind the document on guidance. I do not intend to talk about it in any particular detail. It was issued in March this year and is a revision of the guidance issued about nine months earlier.
  In the olden days, guidance used to be issued under the authority of existing legislation. I believe that it was customary to say what that authority was, but I have found no reference to that in this guidance. I have no doubt that the Minister will take care of my ignorance in his response and tell me exactly how the guidance came into being. My concern is that what we are doing here is turning this document into legislation. I say that because a local authority "must have regard" to it. Of course, that is a common form of words and guidance is commonly used; indeed, it is an increasing trend. However, in this instance, we are changing the funding system for local authorities in relation to highways programming. We are changing it from transport policies and programmes that are produced annually to local transport plans that are quinquennial, with what I would call "rolling reviews".
  When you go into the detail, you actually find that this is a bidding document; in other words, the content and quality of the document regarding the local transport plan will be used by the Government to assess whether or not this or that authority receives the funding for which it is applying. I then turn back in the document to Annex D and the 27 paragraphs that the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, reminded me about in Committee, because I had not counted them properly. 'Those paragraphs are directed at defining the contents for the criteria for assessing the quality of local transport plans.
  However, the situation is worse than that because there are 133 defined characteristics of a "good local transport plan". If you are bidding for funding from the Government, would you dare put in a plan that is not a good one? What are we about here? Indeed, the Minister has criticised me for trying to get a slightly greater degree of definition here and there on the face of this Bill. This is an amazing situation. But that is as may be.
  We have this document being given the force of statute by Clause 111. I do not raise that issue in order to criticise; I raise it because the amendment that I have moved seeks to remove subsection (1) of Clause 111, not so much because I think that I will have any success with it but because I believe that this House—and, indeed, the whole parliamentary process—now needs to consider quite carefully what it is about when it allows this sort of procedure to continue. I do not believe that we can stop it, but I do believe that we need to be very wide awake as to what it is that we are agreeing to and how far we are eroding the system of parliamentary control with which we expect to run our country. I do not apologise for raising that matter in the House although I do not expect that the Minister will be able to give me a satisfactory answer.
  Amendment No. 102 is grouped with Amendment No. 101. Here I am simply concerned with clarity and trying to simplify the wording of the Bill. I am sure that the Minister is relieved at that. It seems to me that subsection (2) of Clause 111 is somewhat obscurely worded. It refers to "policies under section 107(1)" in relation to a bus strategy. However, bus strategies are defined under Clause 109. It seems to me that subsection (2) needs to concentrate on the transport needs of elderly persons or those with mobility problems. Amendment No. 102 seeks to remove the extraneous words "under section 107(1)". I consider that would render the subsection much clearer. I believe that that was a worthwhile effort even though the Minister has on other occasions resisted my attempts to improve and simplify the wording of Bills. I beg to move.
  Lord Whitty: My Lords, As regards Amendment No. 102, I am always grateful to the noble Lord for attempting to edit the Bill. His amendment would certainly simplify it in seeking to delete three words but I am not entirely sure that it would clarify it. I understood the noble Lord's explanation of what he is trying to do but I am not sure that the amendment achieves that. However, we shall, as ever, consider the amendment but I do not think that it achieves what the noble Lord thinks it does.
  As regards Amendment No. 101, I believe that the noble Lord knows perfectly well that the guidance he mentioned in relation to local transport plans is currently non-statutory. However, future versions of it will become the guidance mentioned in Clause 111.
  604
  Amendment No. 101 would delete any requirement to have regard to that. I understand the noble Lord's desire to have near complete autonomy for local authorities but that measure goes a little far.
  As regards transport objectives, any government must provide a comprehensive and consistent framework while avoiding being unreasonably restrictive in guidance. If we did not issue any guidance at all, we would have to put more measures on the face of the Bill which would reduce the flexibility that the noble Lord seeks. That is why we provide guidance. The requirement in subsection (1) of Clause 1ll to have regard to guidance means that local authorities cannot disregard the guidance but does not require the guidance to be followed slavishly, as the noble Lord implied. There is plenty of scope for authorities to develop their own policies having regard to the guidance. The purpose of guidance is to provide a relatively light touch. The alternative of putting everything on the face of the Bill would make it inordinately longer, or even more inordinately long—as I am sure the noble Lord would say. I do not think that that would be appropriate. It certainly would not give local authorities the flexibility they need. I hope that the noble Lord will not press the amendment.
  Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, the Minister has given me the reply that I expected. He will not be disappointed in that, even though he knows that I must be. I am not disappointed in what he said in relation to the purposes of the Bill. I was not criticising that. The point I raised concerned the wider issue in relation to the way in which we approach legislation, guidance and control.
  In that regard the Minister avoided the issue that I attempted to raise. Therefore, I infer that I may not have raised it with sufficient clarity. It may be that it is an issue which needs consideration at a different time and in a different place. Would the Minister consider what I have said in relation to Amendment No. 102? I ask no more than that. He might find it helpful if he does. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [[Amendment No. 102 not moved.]
  Clause 113 [Quality partnership schemes]:
  [Amendment No. 103 not moved.]
  Clause 114 [Notice and consultation requirements]:
  [Amendment No. 104 not moved.]
  Lord Burlison: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned.
  Moved accordingly and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
  House adjourned at one minute past eleven o'clock.

  Sanctions Regimes
  Sanctions Regimes
  Licensing: New Year's Eve
  Licensing: New Year's Eve
  Anti-Terrorism Legislation: Review
  Anti-Terrorism Legislation: Review
  Race Equality Employment Targets: Home Office
  Race Equality Employment Targets: Home Office
  Fuel Duties
  Fuel Duties
  Financial Services Regulation
  Financial Services Regulation
  Government Policy: Regional Implications
  Government Policy: Regional Implications
  Road Safety: Working Time Directive
  Road Safety: Working Time Directive
  Farm Riding Scheme
  Farm Riding Scheme
  Local Councils: New Constitutions
  Local Councils: New Constitutions
  Television Licence Fees
  Television Licence Fees
  NGOs: Appointment of Asian Women
  NGOs: Appointment of Asian Women